Latest news with #OregonConstitution
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
State Rep. Bobby Levy weighs in on bills close to family business while lawmakers weigh regulations
Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, works on the House floor at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023. (Amanda Loman/Oregon Capital Chronicle) On Feb. 5, state Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, urged legislators at a hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire to oppose a bill that would have required large farm owners to report their fertilizer use to the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The goal of the bill, which died in the committee after the hearing, was to help curb groundwater pollution that's become a growing issue in Levy's district in northeast Oregon. 'Making the suggestion that over application (of fertilizer) is widespread is both inaccurate and unfair,' she told the senators. A month later, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality identified 'the Levy farm' in a citation as having over-applied fertilizer on corn fields owned by the family's business throughout 2023, causing pollution to waters of the state, in an already contaminated aquifer. Levy's opposition to the fertilizer reporting bill — Senate Bill 747 — did not include any mention of her own farmland holdings or the income she gets from her family business, Windy River, proprietor of those fields of corn. 'Workers and families with polluted drinking water need good representation on this issue and aren't getting it,' Kaleb Lay, policy director at Oregon Rural Action, said via text. 'We're going to need leadership from the legislature to hold polluters accountable in the Lower Umatilla Basin.' Although Levy has named seven businesses in the statement of economic interest she submits annually to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, Levy isn't barred from sponsoring, testifying on or voting on bills that would directly benefit the family businesses that she receives income from. In fact, by Oregon law, she said she and other legislators are required to vote on bills even when they've declared a conflict of interest. 'As a member of the House of Representatives, it is my honor and obligation to comply with the rules of the House, state law and the Oregon Constitution,' Levy said in an email. 'House rules require me to attend all committee meetings unless I am excused. House rules require me to vote and prohibit me from abstaining from voting. If I am faced with an actual or potential conflict of interest, House rules require me to announce the nature of the conflict prior to voting on the issue that is creating the conflict.' Kate Titus, executive director of Common Cause Oregon, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group focused on public policy in the state, said many other states have laws that recommend or require lawmakers to abstain from voting on bills where they've declared a financial conflict of interest. 'Oregon is behind on these ethics laws,' Titus said. Two bills currently being considered by legislators would change that and offer more transparency. Senate Joint Resolution 9, sponsored by state Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, would refer a ballot measure to Oregon voters in November to decide whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit legislators from voting on bills when they've declared a conflict of interest. Little action has been taken on the proposal, which has been sitting in the Senate Rules Committee since January. Another proposal, made at the request of Gov. Tina Kotek for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, would expand Oregon's conflict of interest laws to apply to other members of a public figure's household. This means officials would need to declare conflicts of interest not only if they or their business would materially benefit or suffer from a bill, but if it would benefit or damage a relative or a member of the official's household, or any businesses associated with relatives or members of the household. The proposal — House Bill 2930 — unanimously passed the House in April and is awaiting a final vote in the Senate. The interests of Levy's family businesses also hew closely to a bill she's sponsoring and another she's opposed, related to power and data centers. Levy is sponsoring a bill that would exempt Umatilla County from Oregon's 45-year-old statewide nuclear ban — an exemption that would favor tech companies already investing billions in small nuclear reactors in the region to power their growing number of energy-hungry data centers and AI processing servers. She also opposed a bill that would create a separate rate class for data centers to ensure costs of grid and infrastructure expansion needed to power them aren't passed onto utilities' residential customers. Demand for power from the Umatilla Electric Cooperative, which supplies electricity to much of Levy's district, has grown 556% in the last decade, according to recent analysis by the nonprofit research organization Sightline Institute. Nearly all of that is from Amazon data centers in the county. Levy did not disclose while she lobbied for and against these bills that the family business Windy River has made deals with Amazon, including selling the company more than 100 acres of its land in 2021 for nearly $3.7 million, to build a new data center that is nearing completion. Windy River still holds the water rights to that land. Levy also did not share that Windy River's farm acres get wastewater to use for irrigation from another Amazon data center, according to the Port of Morrow's most recent wastewater permit. Oregon law does require disclosures of donations to public officials' campaigns, which show Levy accepted a $2,000 donation from Amazon in November. The company gave similarly sized donations to a number of lawmakers from both parties in 2024. Levy contends she did not need to declare a conflict of interest related to the Senate bill that would have required fertilizer reporting because it never went to a vote. The only reason the environmental quality department knows about the overfertilized fields at the Levy farm is because the farm gets wastewater from J.R. Simplot Company and the Hermiston Power Plant. J.R. Simplot has a state-regulated wastewater permit that allows it to supply the Levy farm with wastewater, and in return Simplot is required to report how much fertilizer farmers are laying down on those wastewater-irrigated fields, and to allow DEQ to test wells nearby the farm fields for contaminants. Windy River, the Levy family's company, is now trying to stop receiving water from Simplot, meaning their fields would no longer be monitored under Simplot's state-regulated wastewater permit, and DEQ would no longer be able to monitor Windy River's fertilizer use. Levy said the other bills currently being considered do not require disclosures because they do not and will not directly financially benefit her or her family's businesses, and that she is following all of Oregon's ethics laws. 'The founders of this great state had the wisdom to enshrine in our constitution protections to ensure that legislators have the freedom to engage in robust debate in determining what laws to enact, without fear of being questioned by others outside of the legislature about what is said in that debate,' she said. 'This protection enables me to advocate for the interests of my constituents to the best of my abilities, without fear of malicious prosecution by those who do not hold my constituents' best interests to heart.' Titus said regardless of Oregon's ethics laws being behind the times, public officials should strive for a high degree of transparency and disclosure. 'At some level, you can't fault legislators for playing by the rules, but it's important that elected officials uphold the highest standards of transparency,' she said. 'We elect legislators because they have expertise that represents our community, or certain experiences in our communities. We don't want to prevent them from voting on things that broadly affect them, too. But at some point, when it's related to a very specific private, economic interest, they should need to recuse themselves.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon Senate passes bill protecting Oregonians who alert others of their rights
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The Oregon Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that would protect Oregonians who alert others of their constitutional rights without being found guilty of interfering with law enforcement. The United States Constitution and the Oregon Constitution lay out freedoms, including freedoms of speech and association, along with due process and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Senate Bill 1191, the act of informing someone about these rights does not qualify as a crime of preventing law enforcement from carrying out their duties, obstructing the government or judicial processes. The Democratic Senate Majority Office said the Senate acted on the measure in a bipartisan vote 'knowing the federal administration has boasted about deploying law enforcement to punish political opposition.' 'Ticking time bomb': Oregon lawmakers consider funds for Cascadia-ready Columbia Boulevard bridge '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.' During the bill's public hearing in March, Manning explained, 'One of the reasons that I brought this bill forward, we know across the nation there are some states that if a person is advising someone that 'You don't have to answer that,' or 'You can have an attorney,' those folks could be brought up on charges or something like that.' The senator added this bill will protect people who inform others about their rights, especially in cases concerning immigration. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'We're in crisis,' Manning said. 'That is the purpose of this, to make sure that all of the good folks out there, providing classes, giving information, know that you just by advising someone, you won't be held liable for that because you advised them of their legal constitutional rights.' The senator also pointed to his past experience in law enforcement, serving as a state corrections officer and police officer before he was elected to the Oregon legislature. 'When I was an officer, I recall an apprehension that I made and there were some family members that were out. As I was applying the handcuffs, someone yelled out, 'Don't say anything. Be quiet until you get your attorney.' In some states, I could charge that person with obstruction, just by yelling out,' Manning said during an April 2 work session on the bill. Multnomah County launches by-name database for tracking homeless population The bill comes as some organizations in Oregon, including some religious organizations, offer 'know your rights' trainings to help immigrant communities. During the March public hearing, Britt Conroy, the public policy director for , testified in favor of the bill, which will support EMO's work. 'For Ecumenical Ministry, as an organization that provides immigration 'know your rights' training from Astoria to Portland, Madras to Ashland, we are continually engaged with the community in providing folks information that helps them to make decisions and counter abuses. We welcome very much this legislation and look forward to it moving forward,' Conroy said. Reverend Dr. Mark Knutson, of Portland's Augustana Lutheran Church, also testified in favor of the bill, detailing his experience serving the immigrant community at the sanctuary church. 'I speak strongly in favor of SB 1191. It's a bill that clarifies some things that need to be clarified in this troubling time we're living in. Augustana, as you know, is a sanctuary church since we came there in the mid-90s,' Rev. Knutson testified, noting Augustana has trained hundreds of other congregations on sanctuary church initiatives. DON'T MISS: 'This is a first': Local pastor claims he was denied entry to Portland ICE facility for routine check-in 'Being able to teach other congregations about teaching rights and knowing rights on this issue of immigration is very important and for individuals and families to know this because a lot of people are going to sleep, as you know so well, with a lot of fear at night in this current time that we're in. And so, this very common-sense law allows us to continue what we're doing,' Knutson said, adding there are thousands of sanctuary churches across the country. 'For people to feel safe, secure and know their rights is extremely important in a democracy,' the reverend added. Senate Democrats were joined by 11 Republicans in support of the bill in a 28-1 vote. The lone vote against the bill was cast by Senate Minority Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles). KOIN 6 News reached out to Sen. Bonham's office for statements on his vote. This story will be updated if we receive a response. The bill now heads to the Oregon House for consideration. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregonians ask Legislature to let voters decide on constitutional right to healthy climate
State Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwuakie (right), joins activists from the Oregon Coalition for an Environmental Rights Amendment at a rally in Salem March 26, 2025, after a public hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 28, which would enshrine the right to a healthy environment in the Oregon Constitution. (Photo by Julia Shumway/Oregon Capital Chronicle) By the time Joanna Rogers got to give testimony at the Capitol on a bill that could one day help enshrine the right to a healthy and safe climate in Oregon's Constitution, she and other speakers were told they'd have one, rather than two, minutes to make their case for or against the bill. The 11-year-old from Portland made fast edits to her testimony so she could cut straight to the heart of the matter. 'You are in charge of so many kids' fates. Please do what you can,' Rogers told the lawmakers. If passed, Senate Joint Resolution 28 would refer a ballot measure to Oregon voters in November to amend the state constitution so that it guarantees the 'inherent, fundamental right to a clean, safe and healthy environment, including but not limited to clean air, clean water, thriving ecosystems and a stable climate system.' It would make Oregon one of four states to make such a promise to future generations in its guiding legal document and would allow Oregonians to sue the state government and its agencies if it reneges on that promise. At the first public hearing for the bill Wednesday in the Senate Rules Committee, Rogers was among a crowd so packed with people hoping to give testimony that a second room was opened to accommodate them. More than 170 people submitted written testimony in support of the bill in advance of the hearing and 26 submitted written testimony in opposition. Those opposed include large trade associations such as the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Business & Industry, Associated Oregon Loggers and home building groups. 'We see this as a pathway to an endless stream of lawsuits against family farms and ranches,' Lauren Kuenzi, a lobbyist for the Oregon Farm Bureau, told lawmakers. 'This will put the court in the driver's seat, allowing them to shape public policy for a lot of industries.' The bill's chief sponsor, state Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, said it would not lead to lawsuits against private parties or individuals. 'The government has a responsibility to uphold constitutional rights. Private interests have no responsibility to uphold constitutional rights,' he explained. Citizens could sue the Department of State Lands for permitting a new mining operation, but they could not sue the mining company under the amendment. Sharla Moffett, a lobbyist for Oregon Business & Industry, expressed concern that it would raise environmental rights to the same level as the right to due process and equal protection under the Oregon Constitution, without clarifying what all those rights entail. 'The terms 'clean air,' 'clean water,' 'thriving ecosystems' and 'a stable climate' could be highly subjective and are not defined in the bill,' Moffett said. The bill is cosponsored by state Sens. James Manning Jr., D-Eugene, Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, and Reps. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, Thủy Trần, D-Portland, and Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie. Gamba, who tried to suppress tears as he gave testimony, described the need for the Legislature to meet climate change 'as the existential threat that it is.' He said suing corporations over the environmental harm they've caused has proven to be extraordinarily difficult. But holding Oregon's government accountable into the future could offer options. 'It's a clever idea. It's a bold idea. It allows voters to put an environmental rights amendment into our constitution and reclaim some of our power to stand up to big polluters,' Gamba said to applause in the hearing. Among those in attendance was Miko Vergun, a 22-year-old plaintiff in the landmark youth climate case Juliana v. United States, filed a decade ago in U.S. District Court in Eugene against the federal government by 11 young Oregonians and 10 peers from several states. The case, which attempted to hold the U.S. government accountable for accelerating global climate change through lawmakers' policies and fossil fuel subsidies, never got a trial. It recently hit a dead end after the Supreme Court declined a petition from the plaintiffs to throw out a lower court's decision to dismiss the case. Vergun told the senators things might have been different if the state had guaranteed a constitutional right to a healthy climate for her and other young Oregonians. 'In states like Montana and Hawaii, young people like me have won their cases because their constitutions explicitly protect the right to a healthy environment. That's why SJR 28 matters. It would give Oregonians the same chance to be heard and protected,' she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon appeals court says voter-approved gun law is constitutional, reversing lower court ruling
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday found that a gun control law approved by voters over two years ago is constitutional, reversing a lower court ruling from a state judge who had kept it on hold. The law, one of the toughest in the nation, requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Measure 114 has been tied up in state and federal court since it was narrowly approved by voters in November 2022. It was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. A state judge in rural southeastern Oregon temporarily blocked the law from taking effect after gun owners filed a lawsuit claiming it violated the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution. Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio then presided over a 2023 trial in Harney County and ruled that the law violated the state constitution. The Oregon attorney general's office appealed the ruling. In their Wednesday opinion, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the law's permit-to-purchase program and high-capacity magazine ban do not 'unduly frustrate' the right to armed self-defense under the state constitution. The attorney general's office said the law won't go into effect immediately, as those challenging the law have 35 days to seek further appellate review. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the ruling. 'Oregonians voted for this, and it's time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,' he said in a statement. Tony Aiello Jr., the lead counsel representing the gun owners in the case, said he intends to appeal the ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court. In a statement Wednesday, he said Measure 114 'has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon's Judiciary.' In a separate federal case over the measure, a judge ruled it was lawful under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in that federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Associated Press
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Oregon appeals court says voter-approved gun law is constitutional, reversing lower court ruling
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday found that a gun control law approved by voters over two years ago is constitutional, reversing a lower court ruling from a state judge who had kept it on hold. The law, one of the toughest in the nation, requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Measure 114 has been tied up in state and federal court since it was narrowly approved by voters in November 2022. It was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases. A state judge in rural southeastern Oregon temporarily blocked the law from taking effect after gun owners filed a lawsuit claiming it violated the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution. Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio then presided over a 2023 trial in Harney County and ruled that the law violated the state constitution. The Oregon attorney general's office appealed the ruling. In their Wednesday opinion, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the law's permit-to-purchase program and high-capacity magazine ban do not 'unduly frustrate' the right to armed self-defense under the state constitution. The attorney general's office said the law won't go into effect immediately, as those challenging the law have 35 days to seek further appellate review. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the ruling. 'Oregonians voted for this, and it's time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,' he said in a statement. Tony Aiello Jr., the lead counsel representing the gun owners in the case, said he intends to appeal the ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court. In a statement Wednesday, he said Measure 114 'has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon's Judiciary.' In a separate federal case over the measure, a judge ruled it was lawful under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in that federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
