House committee debates bill to constrain out‑of‑state National Guard mobilizations and clarify governors’ authority

Lawmakers considered House Bill 4,091, which seeks to set statutory guardrails on when the Oregon National Guard may be mobilized and to prohibit other states’ militia from entering Oregon for military duties without the governor’s permission or federal active‑duty status.

Sponsor Rep. Shannon Isidore described the bill as “a readiness and clarity bill” that "does not block lawful deployment" but is intended to keep Oregon’s guard available for wildfire seasons, earthquakes and other state emergencies. Rep. Paul Evans, a retired guard member, urged immediate passage and argued the bill clarifies lines between military roles and law enforcement, invoking Perpich v. Department of Defense and the Insurrection Act. "I don't want another Kent State," Evans said, framing the bill as a limit on unclear mission assignments.

Several members raised complex legal and process questions. Representative Scallatos pressed counsel and witnesses about the Adjutant General’s authority, whether the bill would subject mobilization decisions to state court challenge, and how enforcement would work if another state's guard entered under presidential direction; senior deputy legislative counsel Chris Alnett said enforcement could ultimately involve litigation and federal court orders. Senator Mike McLean testified in opposition, urging the committee to delay action while related federal litigation continues and arguing that state courts second‑guessing deployment decisions could be problematic.

Supporters such as Rep. Dacia Graber and Representative Willie Choatsen framed the measure as protecting Oregon’s ability to respond to disasters and clarifying longstanding practice about the Guard’s role. Rebecca Gladstone of the League of Women Voters delivered remote testimony urging support and referring to recent federal deployments the League found unjustified.