Latest news with #HouseBill2006
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Republicans intensify opposition to capping bills per session in Oregon
From left to right, House Speaker Julie Fahey, former Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp, and Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, speak in support of House Bill 2006, which would cap the number of bills a lawmaker could request be drafted for consideration in the Oregon Legislature. (Shaanth Nanguneri/Oregon Capital Chronicle) Despite bipartisan support for an Oregon bill limiting the amount of legislation a lawmaker can introduce every session, the measure has angered some prominent Republican lawmakers, who called it a partisan power grab during its first committee hearing. Three of the bill's leading supporters — Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, former Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp, and House Speaker Julie Fahey — argued in front of the House Committee on Rules on Thursday that the number of bills the Legislature has had to consider in the past session has been overwhelming. They described the onslaught of reviews staff and legislative analysts must conduct to draft legislation as swamping the public with excessive bureaucracy that impedes good governance. 'Each bill takes staff time, legal review, printing, scheduling,' said Fahey, D-Eugene. 'Thousands of taxpayer dollars go into processing bills that don't become law or even get here. What we're talking about today — being more focused and deliberative in how we introduce legislation — isn't about stifling good ideas. It's about improving the system.' House Bill 2006, introduced in mid-April by six Democrats and five Republicans, would cap individual lawmakers to requesting 25 drafts during the 160-day long sessions in odd years. Lawmakers have historically limited bills in the 35-day short sessions in even years — in 2024, for instance, lawmakers could introduce two bills apiece. The number of bills lawmakers have been considering in the past years has increased steadily, particularly during odd years. This session, legislators have introduced more than 3,400 pieces of legislation since February. Republicans on the committee, however, said further limits on the legislative process would continue to shut them out of opportunities to pass legislation in the minority. The new bill revives another limitation effort that popped up after the last time the Oregon Legislature saw a record number of bills introduced — nearly 3,300 in 2001. At that time, lawmakers considered similar restrictions that eventually failed in the Senate, which was controlled by Republicans at the time. 'I routinely propose bills that are similar to other bills in the building and the only reason for that is because my district wants me to have that voice,' said House Republican leader Rep. Christine Drazan, R-Canby. 'And what ends up moving is the Democrat bill time and again.' Other provisions of the legislation include allowing 400 bills for state agencies and the governor to introduce, 15 bills for each legislative committee, 25 apiece for the secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer and commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, and 100 for the Judicial Department. The Joint Ways and Means Committee is excluded from the bill. The bill wouldn't preclude sponsors from introducing more than 25 pieces of legislation if, for instance, another sponsor requested the drafting from legislative counsel. Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, said the idea of bill limits 'is great,' but that the bill is 'extremely problematic.' She noted that the legislation would allow for the Senate president and speaker of the House to authorize additional measures for members or committees. Combined with the 400 measures the governor and state agencies could introduce, 'that's a problem,' she said. 'You have the majority party being able to authorize,' she said. 'There's no limit on that.' The opposition to the bill doesn't fall squarely along partisan lines, however. One Democrat has called the bill 'capricious' and warned of unintended consequences for lawmakers. 'The meager number of vehicles would more than likely accomplish the following: increased authority for the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and most policy committee chairs,' wrote Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, in a Wednesday letter to the committee. He has filed the most bills this session as a single lawmaker — over 300. 'This will exacerbate the power differential between leadership, policy, and budget specialists.' During the hearing, however, Fahey said she agreed that 400 bills for state agencies and the governor was an excessive estimate, though it was not clear how far she'd be willing to lower the limit. Another Representative, Jason Kropf, D-Bend, said that even 300 bills would be going too far. 'We use the exact same limits and language in the bill, with two exceptions, increasing the baseline number of bills from legislators to 20 to 25 and the number of committee bills from 10 to 15,' Fahey told the committee. 'This drafted bill will go into effect in the 2027 session. Back in 2001, that bill had bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition, and I fully expect that this bill will have the same.' Passing the legislation would make Oregon the 14th state in the nation to put explicit laws on the books that restrict the amount of bills a legislator can introduce. The bill would essentially make the maximum number of bills per session on an odd-year at least 2,850, if each lawmaker, committee, agency, state official and the governor introduced the maximum number of bills they are allowed under the legislation. Because the Joint Committee on Ways and Means is excluded from the legislation, that number is likely an undercount. Another piece of legislation, Senate Bill 1006 by Sen. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, would limit introductions of bills to committees and legislators, preventing agencies from introducing legislation. It has been parked in the Senate Committee on Rules since March. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gun control vs. gun rights: More than 2 dozen Oregon firearm bills introduced this session
Gun control vs. gun rights continues to be a hot-button issue in Oregon, with more than two dozen bills relating to firearms introduced this legislative session. None have yet to gain serious traction for a combination of reasons. A barrage of bills is clogging the system, Measure 114 is facing ongoing court challenges, and the state has already reformed several gun laws in recent years. Many of the record 3,317 bills, resolutions and memorials introduced this session will inevitably die. Separate state and federal challenges have left Measure 114, a sweeping expansion of Oregon gun laws voters narrowly passed in 2022, in legal limbo. Even without the muscle of Measure 114, which would require Oregonians to apply for and obtain a permit before purchasing a gun and outlaw large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, Oregon has some of the strictest gun safety laws in the nation. It ranks just outside the top 10 by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (No. 11) and Everytown for Gun Safety (No. 12). The Giffords Law Center annually ranks states based on new and preexisting gun laws. Oregon's grade has risen from a D+ to an A- in the past 10 years and has what the organization recognizes as the 11th-strongest gun laws in the U.S. 'We probably could be doing a better job publicizing what we have on the books, but there's still more work to do,' said state Sen. Lisa Reynolds, D-Portland, a chief sponsor for a handful of firearms-related bills this session. Here is a look at some of those and others introduced this session. Senate Bill 697 would limit gun possession for people who are under 21 years old with exceptions for certain groups such as police officers and military personnel. The bill is also known as the Russell Paul Evans Act, after the late grandfather of Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, and a carryover from a bill introduced by Evans during the 2023 session. House Bill 2006 received a public hearing but died in committee upon adjournment. While Senate Bill 697 addresses concerns about the role of young people in gun violence incidents, including mass shootings, opponents argue it infringes on the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. The bill would make it illegal for someone under 21 to use or possess semiautomatic rifles or shotguns, and it would have a significant impact on high school trap shooting, one of the fastest-growing sports in the country. An estimated two-thirds of firearms used in trap shooting are semiautomatics. Senate Bill 429 would implement a mandatory 72-hour waiting period for transfers of a firearm or unfinished frame or receiver from the time a gun dealer requests a criminal background check and has received an approval number from Oregon State Police. Supporters say waiting period laws delaying the purchase by a few days can reduce gun homicide and suicide rates and allow for more thorough background checks. Opponents argue the bill has no provisions for OSP accountability or timely response to the application, leading to what they would expect to be an indefinite waiting period. House Bill 3076 would direct the Department of Justice to study the establishment of a state gun dealer licensing program, which sponsors believe necessary to deal with a handful of bad-faith gun dealers who skirt regulations and whose guns sold are disproportionately found among those used in crimes. Opponents argue a state-level licensing program would be redundant. Oregon gun dealers already need a Federal Firearms License from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and they must renew it every three years. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia require dealers to obtain a license, including Washington and California, to engage in the retail sale of firearms. House Bill 3742 would allow members of the Legislature and their staffers with concealed handgun licenses to possess a firearm in the Capitol, a response to concerns for their safety walking to and from vehicles and an increasingly hostile political climate. The bill comes four years after armed protesters breached the security at the Capitol, which was closed to the public at the time. That same year, lawmakers passed a bill banning firearms in the Capitol. Oregon gun rights organizations and CHL carry permit holders are outraged. 'We adamantly oppose this attempt to, once again, elevate the members of the legislature over the people they work for,' the Oregon Firearms Federation posted on its website, calling it an 'outrageous insult' to deny citizens this right while allowing legislators to be armed. Senate Bill 696 would create the crime of unlawful transport, manufacture or transfer of a rapid-fire activator, a device attached to a firearm to increase the trigger rate and mimic automatic weapon fire. The crime would be punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine or both. The bill also would create the crime of unlawful possession of a rapid-fire activator, punishable by a maximum of 364 days in prison, a $6,250 fine or both. Matching House Bills 2396 and 2780 would automatically qualify a person to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm if they hold a valid concealed handgun license. A permit-to-purchase system, part of Measure 114, has yet to be established, let alone defined or resourced, because of the ongoing court challenges. The permit system would require anyone who wants to buy a firearm in Oregon to pass a background check and take a firearms safety course first. No permit is currently required, and a gun can be given to a buyer after three business days, even if the background check is unfinished. Three identical bills have been introduced, two in the House (2606 and 3074) and one in the Senate (243), requiring the Department of State Police to study the efficiency of background checks for gun transfers. All three bills direct the department to submit findings to the interim committees of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary no later than Sept. 15, 2026. Senate Joint Resolution 27 proposes an amendment to the Oregon Constitution establishing a right to carry concealed firearms. The resolution would refer the proposed amendment to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election. Capi Lynn is a senior reporter for the Statesman Journal. Send comments, questions and tips to her at clynn@ and follow her work on X @CapiLynn and Facebook @CapiLynnSJ. This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon gun control legislation among barrage of bills in 2025
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
West Virginia governor targets transgender women for the crimes of cisgender men
West Virginia Gov. Patrick's Morrisey's bill to ban transgender women from single space places can't be enforced if the Legislature passes it because of Fourth Circuit Court ruling. (Vladimir Vladimirov | Getty Images) Gov. Patrick Morrisey's 'gender definition' bill is wasting everyone's time. House Bill 2006 states it will 'reaffirm the longstanding meaning of sex, male and female in state law,' and 'preserve women's restrooms, multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms, and sleeping quarters for women in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' There are no criminal penalties under this bill because doing so would be in violation of the ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester School Board, where the Fourth Circuit ruled that under Title IX protections, a student must be able to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. This bill only comes into play if that ruling is overturned. This is similar to the inaccurately named 'Women's Bill of Rights' that former Gov. Jim Justice pushed last year, but failed to go up for a vote on the final night of the regular session. The only difference is that Morrisey has added domestic violence shelters to the list of spaces. The West Virginia Coalition of Domestic Violence opposes this bill. 'Most of the women seeking shelter have been abused by their intimate partners, not men dressing up as women to gain access to vulnerable survivors,' the coalition said in a press release. 'Protection for women and girls is best provided by recognizing that most forms of violence are perpetrated against them within their homes.' This is the myth that Republicans try to sell — straight men will dress up as women to enter these spaces and abuse women. In states with an LGBTQ non-discrimination law, there's no record of behavior like that increasing. The problem here is cisgender men, not transgender women. This bill targets the wrong people. Let's look at some of the wording in this bill: '…in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' Why aren't women afforded safety from men in all facilities? Women — cisgender and transgender — all deserve to feel safe. However, that's not how the world works. Domestic violence shelters are necessary. And transgender people may be more likely to experience intimate partner violence than cisgender people. Banning domestic violence shelters from serving transgender women would be 'a death sentence,' said Julie Britton, executive director of the YWCA Resolve Family Abuse Program in Charleston. 'There are no alternative facilities, and if we are not available, the only other option would be a homeless shelter or the streets,' she told lawmakers. 'I don't know if we're worried about women's safety putting trans women out on the street.' It's clear that these shelters want to continue to help transgender women — so why would the state prevent them from doing so? It's unnecessary government overreach. If Republicans really cared about keeping women safe from harassment and violence, there wouldn't have been bills in both the Senate (which was withdrawn) and House trying to remove rape and incest exemptions from the state's near-total abortion ban. How is it protecting a woman to make her give birth after a man forced himself on her and impregnated her? In West Virginia, a rapist's parental rights can only be limited or terminated if there's a conviction. Nationally, only about 31% of sexual assaults are reported, and of those only about 2.5% of sexual abusers will go to prison or jail. Only about 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the police. In about 8 out of 10 incidents, the woman knew her rapist, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN — only about 19.5% of rapes are committed by a stranger, making it more difficult on the victim to report the incident for fear of more retaliation. Those incidents aren't happening in women's locker rooms or women's bathrooms. Another bill that will put women in danger is Senate Bill 299, which aims to ban hormone treatment for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Children with gender dysphoria suffer from psychological distress because their gender identity doesn't match the gender they were assigned at birth. So much so, that they can sometimes feel suicidal. When doctors can prescribe hormone treatment, like puberty blockers, it relieves some of that distress. The medications temporarily pause puberty and are totally reversible. When the Senate discussed SB 299, they had virtual testimonies from people who tried to sell the story that minors receiving gender-affirming care are having major surgeries. They are not. A study by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health network found little to no gender-affirming surgeries on transgender minors in the U.S. In fact, cisgender minors and adults had substantially more gender-affirming surgeries, such as breast reductions surgeries for males. Gender-affirming care is most often used by cisgender people. If you aren't going to ban hair transplants and breast augmentation surgeries for cisgender people you're not serious about gender-affirming care. You're only serious about hurting transgender people. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
West Virginia governor targets transgender women for the crimes of cisgender men
West Virginia Gov. Patrick's Morrisey's bill to ban transgender women from single space places can't be enforced if the Legislature passes it because of Fourth Circuit Court ruling. (Vladimir Vladimirov | Getty Images) Gov. Patrick Morrisey's 'gender definition' bill is wasting everyone's time. House Bill 2006 states it will 'reaffirm the longstanding meaning of sex, male and female in state law,' and 'preserve women's restrooms, multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms, and sleeping quarters for women in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' There are no criminal penalties under this bill because doing so would be in violation of the ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester School Board, where the Fourth Circuit ruled that under Title IX protections, a student must be able to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. This bill only comes into play if that ruling is overturned. This is similar to the inaccurately named 'Women's Bill of Rights' that former Gov. Jim Justice pushed last year, but failed to go up for a vote on the final night of the regular session. The only difference is that Morrisey has added domestic violence shelters to the list of spaces. The West Virginia Coalition of Domestic Violence opposes this bill. 'Most of the women seeking shelter have been abused by their intimate partners, not men dressing up as women to gain access to vulnerable survivors,' the coalition said in a press release. 'Protection for women and girls is best provided by recognizing that most forms of violence are perpetrated against them within their homes.' This is the myth that Republicans try to sell — straight men will dress up as women to enter these spaces and abuse women. In states with an LGBTQ non-discrimination law, there's no record of behavior like that increasing. The problem here is cisgender men, not transgender women. This bill targets the wrong people. Let's look at some of the wording in this bill: '…in facilities where women have been traditionally afforded privacy and safety from acts of abuse, harassment, sexual assault, and violence committed by men.' Why aren't women afforded safety from men in all facilities? Women — cisgender and transgender — all deserve to feel safe. However, that's not how the world works. Domestic violence shelters are necessary. And transgender people may be more likely to experience intimate partner violence than cisgender people. Banning domestic violence shelters from serving transgender women would be 'a death sentence,' said Julie Britton, executive director of the YWCA Resolve Family Abuse Program in Charleston. 'There are no alternative facilities, and if we are not available, the only other option would be a homeless shelter or the streets,' she told lawmakers. 'I don't know if we're worried about women's safety putting trans women out on the street.' It's clear that these shelters want to continue to help transgender women — so why would the state prevent them from doing so? It's unnecessary government overreach. If Republicans really cared about keeping women safe from harassment and violence, there wouldn't have been bills in both the Senate (which was withdrawn) and House trying to remove rape and incest exemptions from the state's near-total abortion ban. How is it protecting a woman to make her give birth after a man forced himself on her and impregnated her? In West Virginia, a rapist's parental rights can only be limited or terminated if there's a conviction. Nationally, only about 31% of sexual assaults are reported, and of those only about 2.5% of sexual abusers will go to prison or jail. Only about 12% of child sexual abuse is reported to the police. In about 8 out of 10 incidents, the woman knew her rapist, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN — only about 19.5% of rapes are committed by a stranger, making it more difficult on the victim to report the incident for fear of more retaliation. Those incidents aren't happening in women's locker rooms or women's bathrooms. Another bill that will put women in danger is Senate Bill 299, which aims to ban hormone treatment for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Children with gender dysphoria suffer from psychological distress because their gender identity doesn't match the gender they were assigned at birth. So much so, that they can sometimes feel suicidal. When doctors can prescribe hormone treatment, like puberty blockers, it relieves some of that distress. The medications temporarily pause puberty and are totally reversible. When the Senate discussed SB 299, they had virtual testimonies from people who tried to sell the story that minors receiving gender-affirming care are having major surgeries. They are not. A study by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health network found little to no gender-affirming surgeries on transgender minors in the U.S. In fact, cisgender minors and adults had substantially more gender-affirming surgeries, such as breast reductions surgeries for males. Gender-affirming care is most often used by cisgender people. If you aren't going to ban hair transplants and breast augmentation surgeries for cisgender people you're not serious about gender-affirming care. You're only serious about hurting transgender people. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
