[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6263585,"mediaKeyId","3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6","parentId",3103429,"title","OJD-backed task force proposed to study barriers to jury service","audioSeconds",283,"startMs",3274690,"endMs",3558070,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6&start=3274&end=3558","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6/thumbnail_3274690.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6263585/Oregon/OJD-backed-task-force-proposed-to-study-barriers-to-jury-service","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263585-29f39bd991311957456806c6fc64d80c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188869&Signature=h-nrCzaD6Sfow6yQpVX7Ds-5aL5ch~xKDce-oPVrPpxNfWH0Mmxr41Nty3URG9nJ62eM7UNYHi-fnSMP0ZNyadlUEmQondLOtnXCW-s2QvuSQZ4WHsu1sfMHNwNZNcar~PJRjYiOMqd4Q1aAfvc93osuxKTxW8MGhnc-GCEdsURQIVh124LLNKyqJglrKD4doUFYlXWP5Tx0GmWIvjqHhB-UOcI2zUhlcchycahGDCKi~ThjRSLN3zfiaKX1hw-yRKv4r1kle7Jbueuar67h402V0jhtQ8mcR6EVUMytbEVqDyd4VR-Vazocu3FxuIVCkMLKQlRU2AOWKiDgpUqkXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-04-23T00:00:00Z","article","The House Committee on Judiciary heard testimony April 23 on Senate Bill 1175A, which would establish a 15‑member task force directed to examine and recommend ways to remove barriers to jury service in Oregon and to submit a report by Dec. 15, 2026.

Aaron Nott, director of government relations for the Oregon Judicial Department, told the committee jury service remains foundational for the justice system but has declined since the COVID‑19 pandemic. He said the department expects to staff the task force with existing OJD personnel and emphasized the work is long‑standing and central to OJD’s access‑to‑justice plan. \"We probably could have undertaken this on our own,\" Nott said, but legislative partnership is necessary because statutory and budgetary changes may be recommended.

Committee questions focused on compensation, length of service and county variations in practice; members observed that differences in how counties summon jurors and the anticipated duration of service (one day versus multiple weeks) could materially affect willingness to serve. Nott noted compensation and accessibility are recurring themes in outreach and that the task force is intended to examine a range of issues — from outreach and community trust to logistical impediments and pay.

Why it matters: declining jury participation can strain court operations and affect representative juries; the task force’s report could lead to statutory changes or budget requests addressing compensation, summons practices and accessibility.

Next steps: the committee received OJD testimony and closed the hearing; OJD cited that the work is already planned within its staffing and framed the bill as a vehicle to coordinate statutory and budgetary recommendations to the Legislature.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Judiciary 04/23/2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 1175A would create a 15‑member task force convened by the Oregon Judicial Department to examine barriers to jury participation, including compensation, accessibility and outreach; OJD said it plans to staff the task force with in‑house staff and sought legislative partnership on statutory and budgetary recommendations.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",18092,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6263589,"Bill would grant liability immunity to court visitors acting in good faith",373,2897900,3271780,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6&start=2897&end=3271","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6/thumbnail_2897900.jpg","/articles/6263589/Oregon/Bill-would-grant-liability-immunity-to-court-visitors-acting-in-good-faith","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263589-e3edafa07740b8fd8f3de023b66c417e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188869&Signature=QBuQTC25wOhYCoxuJwX-zpLqVPPxM3K25PQysoQnYiSe7yLVK2xF9mw3FSvyFMLZUgt3de8DDvCUrQcJl6i4svgSbMPli5~Z5tF402yIO~ls5UGjktZUlNf1n0mzEAkIO~oDOe0Lf3i6FFIyJStSpFzcCXVysEZhppam5JWGBqMJIcZlAWL9phpwh6tuMfWVq2MTxFlbXk1c9i1vubR6mc~pSzrrGqm4ti9QmvV0ve2YrsGc2-cZ2lnMwhyoPkeS3gm9pqlp0yZNMGrI5OM0gVSdSD9OrXrowsSAzrzJJQVI2MVJW7HuDasmdLKqxiBkCU6bS~55n8IzDWw9fqMZvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary took testimony April 23 on Senate Bill 1123A, which would grant immunity from liability for good‑faith acts performed by court visitors in the scope of their role in guardianship and protective‑proceeding investigations.

Chris Rawson, Oregon Public Guardian and Conservator, and court visitor Katie Garman described the role court visitors play as the court’s neutral eyes and ears in adult guardianship petitions. Rawson said court visitors investigate allegations of incapacity or need for guardianship, evaluate proposed guardians and communicate the protected person’s objections to the court. He said court visitors sometimes prevent inappropriate guardianships and that, unlike special advocates, court visitors are usually independent contractors who currently lack statutory liability protection.

Katie Garman, a longtime court visitor and registered nurse, described being named as a defendant in litigation arising from a contested guardianship case and said that independent contractors receive no defense or indemnification from the Judicial Department. \"Finding an attorney and paying for even initial consultation would have cost far more than I was paid for in this case,\" she said, urging the committee to pass SB 1123A to preserve the workforce of qualified visitors who perform a time‑consuming, often unpaid public service.

Oregon Judicial Department staff said they were neutral but provided technical context, noting the bill would not authorize court visitors to act outside their duties or to act in bad faith. Rawson and witnesses pointed out that special advocates (a related role under guardianship statutes) already have immunity language and that SB 1123A borrows that statutory phrasing.

Why it matters: court visitors play a critical role in safeguarding due process in guardianship proceedings; proponents argued the lack of liability protection discourages experienced professionals from serving, which could slow or degrade court oversight in protective matters.

Next steps: the committee closed testimony and heard requests for technical drafting, with no recorded committee vote on April 23.","Senate Bill 1123A would provide civil‑liability immunity to appointed court visitors who act in good faith in guardianship investigations; proponents said immunity protects a scarce, essential workforce and preserves the integrity of guardianship investigations.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6263594,"Bill would create crime for threats motivated by official duties, lawmakers told",682,2208050,2890190,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6&start=2208&end=2890","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6/thumbnail_2208050.jpg","/articles/6263594/Oregon/Bill-would-create-crime-for-threats-motivated-by-official-duties-lawmakers-told","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263594-6912d7193ce6994836eaa61cf60f4893/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188869&Signature=m38Krd~FChEFowbTa1615ZJdTWFQ~jrO4CwjaIYSVDRoWFKkvWRi98-t86ddYy406sdvEkzoKKV9EFBKpC6zQ2peVr2piFKNt45j0Xb60TDbgMe9UrVrtIXAV~DSMDsgqcRRvot84ZFmX26Cyozq4wBpDddC5jhOsczJxscTsP5xnWMM1FDyzWbvdyjWEHEqYlBLkR56vsFHq4Zb8i1y68Op6kkm16NwTNLxN~9mgba~76U8XVSxWKpa3cuF8CMcuLt3C2~thALeifdYQKpGeJPNiPGKWEWcCsRJC~LIFuqkWKpqoauIzfeMxMDKiy8PiyvBS011lW~4PbN760-XFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary heard April 23 from sponsors and municipal representatives on Senate Bill 473A, a measure that would create the crime of threatening a public official when a communication knowingly conveys a threat that instills fear of imminent serious physical injury and is motivated by the recipient’s public office or duties.

Senator Anthony Broadbent, who presented the bill, said it is a response to a growing national and local trend of threats against public servants. He described the measure as a narrowly tailored statutory gap‑filler that preserves free political expression while addressing violent threats motivated by an official’s role. \"We’re witnessing a troubling national and local trend of continued threats against public officials,\" he said and cited National League of Cities findings on harassment of local officials.

Municipal representatives including the League of Oregon Cities and the city of Eugene offered support. Scott Winkles of the League of Oregon Cities said members reported threats severe enough to make officials fear for themselves and their families and cited an example in which a person produced a rock while threatening to \"stone\" an official; the presence of the object, he said, changed the likely legal analysis. \"We believe that this bill is a reasonable step forward to criminalize that conduct,\" Winkles testified.

Committee members focused on statutory scope and overlap with existing offenses such as menacing, harassment, coercion and stalking, and on which public servants should be covered. Representative Chotzin asked whether the bill is intended to criminalize conduct not otherwise covered; Senator Broadbent said the bill aims to address conduct that does not neatly fit within current statutes. Several lawmakers raised questions about whether public defenders and other court personnel should be explicitly included; Maylee Browning of OCDLA flagged that public defenders were not explicitly listed and urged clarifying language to ensure public defenders who are state‑funded are covered.

The sponsor said the bill passed the Senate with broad support (recorded in the sponsor summary as 29 ayes and 1 excused) and that language was crafted to balance safety and First Amendment concerns.

Why it matters: municipalities and local officials testified the incidence and severity of threats has increased and that a narrowly drawn new statute could provide prosecutors and courts a tool to address threats motivated by officials’ duties without chilling protected political speech.

Next steps: testimony closed and committee discussion continued on technical drafting and the scope of who is a protected \"public official,\" including whether to explicitly include public defenders and court staff.","Senate Bill 473A would create a new offense for knowingly conveying threats to public officials motivated by their official duties; sponsors and municipal groups said officials face mounting threats, while committee members asked about overlap with existing crimes and about who the statute should protect.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6263600,"House Judiciary committee hears SB 599A to bar housing discrimination based on immigration status",2089,1525130,3614360,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6&start=1525&end=3614","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6/thumbnail_1525130.jpg","/articles/6263600/Oregon/House-Judiciary-committee-hears-SB-599A-to-bar-housing-discrimination-based-on-immigration-status","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263600-9061ef385801b098ca4354d2cb09ef1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188869&Signature=HM0goFpy6rEs4zXZNxHbk8iIPB2YhdBoKVZQy7eUNPWacxcQLonIUsQPfbaZszKd3qPlkVix7isSiAvZtiWTfVrGu5FioeF2WUUWMt6tAPKF4wLSlWN~PkgiPHRTzwbebOEWfi2fERFWUWAXzOnDDK3HsZ8v~2WhXdFExEFjL2-i-yjRArE6fjJAKa~o5-2skxwnlJ8WnD5XsJb2XnotQ0pCja1etMuZ08BjMu~PzWKkd2CaUweLSTyoqrZtRWaVaYd6rJoWh5Dnol~vtixyjKHaBXC~F2jb8IiI2xdf2yM9I29qJ9hky0BrGWtY0bs411aZfORMC7fnECSRttdI8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary conducted a public hearing April 23 on Senate Bill 599A (dash 4), a bill that would prohibit landlords from discriminating against applicants or tenants on the basis of immigration or citizenship status and require landlords to accept a range of identity documents in lieu of a Social Security number.

Senator Winsve Campos, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the measure addresses a gap in state law by preventing landlords from using immigration status to deny housing or to harass or intimidate tenants. \"This bill is about more than documents. It is about dignity,\" the senator said, describing immigrant and refugee neighbors as integral members of Oregon communities who should not face housing exclusion.

Supporters proffered testimony from organizations including the Oregon Law Center, Housing Oregon, Basic Rights Oregon, Unite Oregon, Community Alliance of Tenants and local service providers. Sybil Hebb of the Oregon Law Center said the bill is based on Portland’s 2019 ordinance and five other states with similar protections; she noted the measure was amended in the Senate to address technical landlord concerns and to allow landlords to request combinations of alternative identification documents to verify name, date of birth and physical appearance. \"This bill will provide reassurance and greater stability for our client communities,\" Hebb said.

Representative Ricky Ruiz and other lawmakers framed the bill as consistent with Oregon values and emphasized its bipartisan Senate passage record; the sponsor’s summary noted a Senate floor tally of 21 ayes and 8 nays. Housing industry representatives submitted neutral testimony in the record and, according to witnesses, some landlord groups worked with bill drafters to make the compliance requirements workable. Housing Oregon’s Kevin Cronin said Portland providers report compliance has been feasible and that his organization will help implement trainings for property managers.

Questions from committee members touched on the bill’s interaction with federally subsidized housing programs and on implementation details. Witnesses clarified that the bill does not override federal requirements for subsidized housing programs that require immigration verification for eligibility but would limit private landlords from seeking immigration status in ordinary rental applications. The bill also declares an emergency and would become operative 30 days after passage; sponsor materials listed a minimal fiscal impact and no revenue impact.

Why it matters: supporters said SB 599A reduces fear that discourages tenants from reporting unsafe housing conditions or asserting their rights and extends a protection that already exists in Portland to the statewide level. Opponents or concerned stakeholders in the record argued the measure could affect landlords’ screening practices, although witnesses said amendments aim to preserve workable verification methods.

Next steps: the committee closed the public hearing and received a range of testimony from tenant‑advocacy groups, providers and allied lawmakers; no committee vote was recorded April 23.","Senate Bill 599A would prohibit landlords from inquiring about or denying rental housing based on immigration or citizenship status and allow alternative identity verification documents; supporters said the change promotes tenant safety and housing stability, while stakeholders discussed compliance and federal program exceptions.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6263603,"Committee hears bill to make repeated assaults on workers a felony",1481,29661,1511030,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6&start=29&end=1511","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103429-d389a76804cbb0b2b82e473693f87da6/thumbnail_29661.jpg","/articles/6263603/Oregon/Committee-hears-bill-to-make-repeated-assaults-on-workers-a-felony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263603-2d06483a264fc57e53f902de0b0aa11c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188869&Signature=btT5UgyKyfKFRlnh0653DEI97m7KOFfHdj7a7HWaWmhDgqcTIWGeuRMgbOIipc40dOBMBmOxIbWOFYsqu3QwDxbarQwczpQKupGitfggrExjYpsMDlqrpntA60FiqzZb61d-NkgWdOOBJ27WO4Uz-9OA4ax5sv0nzF2YXBPaUxfDIpfZo-fBMM7ljy5LLwRUaRJ8FMOO0j2PNSwtA5RT~A9GSpc1ticd3edeomdiCmyCQHZshoF17DZvk1MpWQCOj2oU6xAW3lVJYbeXzOZZYEhigS822Y1iEKQTbj8yCoX~ADtogeC1PRu9FWMvjWbDNQ6CYOhJDmIUZWgHDF2kmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Judiciary held a public hearing April 23 on Senate Bill 170A, a measure that would create an \"occupational assault\" enhancement and elevate specified fourth‑degree assaults against workers performing official duties to a higher felony level after prior convictions.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Pruzanski, told committee members the measure is intended to set a uniform standard across occupations so individual professions (for example health care, transit operators and others) will not have to return every session seeking separate protections. He said the proposal would treat an assault committed against a person who is performing official duties as an aggravating circumstance that counts toward an enhanced sentence if the assailant has two or more prior occupational‑assault convictions.

Supporters said the bill responds to repeated requests from multiple professions and aims to hold repeat offenders accountable. \"That that would count against the individual for enhanced treatment if it continues in the future,\" Senator Pruzanski said, describing the measure as creating a baseline definition for occupationally motivated assaults. Representative Boomer Wright, who offered an amendment discussed at the hearing, said his amendment would add explicit coverage for public employees and expand certain aggravated‑harassment provisions to include actions such as propelling bodily fluids at public employees.

Committee members asked several procedural and evidentiary questions. Representative Lewis asked whether the bill requires proof that the assailant knew the victim was working; Senator Pruzanski said that, as drafted, the question of the assailant’s knowledge would likely be a factual question for a judge or jury and that he did not have a bright‑line rule in the current draft. Representative Wright’s amendment drew a critical procedural response from Maylee Browning, legislative director for the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (OCDLA), who said OCDLA \"vehemently opposed the hospital worker assault bill every single session\" and opposed Representative Wright’s amendment because it would expand aggravated harassment to an immediate class C felony without escalation.

Other lawmakers framed the bill as a third‑strike style enhancement rather than purely deterrence. \"It's also about accountability,\" Representative Mannix said, noting the bill’s mechanism of increasing penalties after prior convictions.

Senator Pruzanski suggested a path forward that would either merge Representative Wright’s language into SB 170A as an added section or leave the proposals as separate bills; he said he would concur with a merger if the committee preferred a single bill. The committee closed the public hearing on SB 170A and proceeded to the next item on the agenda.

Why it matters: proponents framed the bill as providing consistent protection for workers across occupations; opponents warned that the draft may lack safeguards for people with mental illness and that the knowledge element is unclear, which could create prosecutorial and constitutional complications.

Next steps: the committee record shows the public hearing was closed; further work — including possible amendment language to clarify knowledge requirements and charging practice — was discussed but no committee vote was recorded on April 23.

","Lawmakers and witnesses debated Senate Bill 170A, which would treat repeated assaults on workers performing official duties as an enhanced felony offense; proponents said it creates a uniform, occupation‑wide standard while critics and some defense groups raised concerns about mental‑health and knowledge requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

OJD-backed task force proposed to study barriers to jury service

Bill would grant liability immunity to court visitors acting in good faith

Bill would create crime for threats motivated by official duties, lawmakers told

House Judiciary committee hears SB 599A to bar housing discrimination based on immigration status

Committee hears bill to make repeated assaults on workers a felony