Oregon Freedom Amendment

Emergency Messages as of 10:27 PM, Fri. Nov 6

No information currently posted.

Subscribe to receive FlashAlert messages from Oregon Freedom Amendment.

Manage my existing Subscription

News Release

Oregon Freedom Amendment Now Authorized To Circulate Statewide - 11/01/26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


The Oregon Freedom Amendment (IP-25) is now authorized for circulation across the state. For the first time, Oregonians can sign a petition that would turn hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, ranching, wildlife management, and agricultural animal husbandry from privileges into individual constitutional rights. The Oregon Supreme Court has held for more than a century that taking wild game and fish “is not a right, but is a privilege, which may be restricted, prohibited, or conditioned, as the law-making power may see fit” (State v. Pulos, 1913; reaffirmed State v. Dickerson, 2015).

A privilege can be narrowed, fee-loaded, or redefined by the next Legislature, the next agency rule, or the next well-funded petition. A constitutional right cannot.  Many Oregonians breathed easier when IP-28 failed to qualify for the 2026 ballot. That relief is premature. Chief petitioner, David Michelson, has founded a non-profit and has made clear the campaign is not finished. The same interests that tried to redefine ordinary hunting, fishing, farming, and animal husbandry as abuse or cruelty are organizing to return with more time and more money. 

IP-25 is the permanent shield safeguarding our heritage. It amends the Oregon Constitution to establish an individual fundamental right to hunt, fish, trap, farm, ranch, manage wildlife, and engage in agricultural animal husbandry. It safeguards these rights from being redefined as animal abuse, neglect, or cruelty. It prohibits the state from imposing undue or excessive fees, permitting requirements, or unnecessary burdens. It limits regulation to laws or rules that are reasonable, narrowly tailored, and necessary to promote sound wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or the prevention of substantial harm to public health or private property—and consistent with sustainable, science-based practices. 

The campaign is currently running on grassroots support. Every signature and every dollar moves the petition closer to a town near you so Oregonians can sign and make history.  Future generations deserve the same ability to put healthy food on the table and pass down the Oregon way of life without the next out-of-state campaign erasing it. Match the chief petitioner's $50 donation — or whatever you can donate today — securely at www.oregonfreedomamendment.org.  Share the word. Volunteer. Help put the Freedom Amendment on the ballot before the next petition does the opposite.

 

Oregon Freedom Amendment Now Authorized To Circulate Statewide - 11/01/26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


The Oregon Freedom Amendment (IP-25) is now authorized for circulation across the state. For the first time, Oregonians can sign a petition that would turn hunting, fishing, trapping, farming, ranching, wildlife management, and agricultural animal husbandry from privileges into individual constitutional rights. The Oregon Supreme Court has held for more than a century that taking wild game and fish “is not a right, but is a privilege, which may be restricted, prohibited, or conditioned, as the law-making power may see fit” (State v. Pulos, 1913; reaffirmed State v. Dickerson, 2015).

A privilege can be narrowed, fee-loaded, or redefined by the next Legislature, the next agency rule, or the next well-funded petition. A constitutional right cannot.  Many Oregonians breathed easier when IP-28 failed to qualify for the 2026 ballot. That relief is premature. Chief petitioner, David Michelson, has founded a non-profit and has made clear the campaign is not finished. The same interests that tried to redefine ordinary hunting, fishing, farming, and animal husbandry as abuse or cruelty are organizing to return with more time and more money. 

IP-25 is the permanent shield safeguarding our heritage. It amends the Oregon Constitution to establish an individual fundamental right to hunt, fish, trap, farm, ranch, manage wildlife, and engage in agricultural animal husbandry. It safeguards these rights from being redefined as animal abuse, neglect, or cruelty. It prohibits the state from imposing undue or excessive fees, permitting requirements, or unnecessary burdens. It limits regulation to laws or rules that are reasonable, narrowly tailored, and necessary to promote sound wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or the prevention of substantial harm to public health or private property—and consistent with sustainable, science-based practices. 

The campaign is currently running on grassroots support. Every signature and every dollar moves the petition closer to a town near you so Oregonians can sign and make history.  Future generations deserve the same ability to put healthy food on the table and pass down the Oregon way of life without the next out-of-state campaign erasing it. Match the chief petitioner's $50 donation — or whatever you can donate today — securely at www.oregonfreedomamendment.org.  Share the word. Volunteer. Help put the Freedom Amendment on the ballot before the next petition does the opposite.

 

State Of Oregon Threatens Countersuit Against Disabled Veteran - 10/16/26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
State of Oregon Threatens Countersuit Against Disabled Veteran Plaintiff in Near-Settlement of Recall Petition Lawsuit, Triggering Severe Mental Health Crisis
LA PINE, OREGON — William H. Minnix, a 71-year-old disabled United States Air Force veteran and self-represented plaintiff, announced today that a near-settlement of his federal lawsuit against Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read collapsed after the State offered prospective changes to statewide recall forms and instructions—while simultaneously threatening to countersue him if he refused to drop the case and accept their terms.
The threatened countersuit, Minnix states, directly contributed to a severe mental health crisis on October 15, 2026, requiring immediate intervention by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Crisis Line. Minnix, who has expended his time, personal funds, and resources pursuing clearer recall petition language, reports that the State’s approach dismissed his sacrifices, his status as a senior citizen and disabled veteran, and the serious health consequences of the litigation.
“No veteran should have to choose between protecting his health and pursuing his constitutional rights,” Minnix stated. “I am grateful for the VA professionals who intervened and continue to support me. My determination to pursue the case remains, but I recognize that I need legal assistance.”
Near-Settlement and Countersuit Threat
According to Minnix, the Oregon Secretary of State’s office indicated willingness to revise the wording and instructions on future statewide recall petition forms—the core issue at the heart of the lawsuit. During the prior gubernatorial recall effort, Minnix contends the existing language created widespread confusion. Volunteers and signature gatherers, relying on the printed instructions, shredded valid signatures because they believed signers were restricted to their own county, city, or district of registration. The Secretary of State provided no clarifying guidance, Minnix maintains, which is precisely what he has sought to correct for all future petitions.
Rather than resolve the matter on terms that acknowledged those problems and his efforts, the State’s settlement posture included the threat of a countersuit if Minnix continued the litigation without accepting their proposal. Minnix describes this as an attempt to leverage the State’s superior legal resources against a pro se, disabled senior citizen in order to force abandonment of the claims.
He further states that the State took no meaningful account of his disabilities, his request for accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the cumulative physical, financial, and emotional toll of the case. The October 15 crisis, he reports, required VA intervention; he remains under continuing VA mental-health support.
Unequal Resources and Request for Court Assistance
Minnix emphasizes the disparity between one disabled, self-represented veteran and the full legal apparatus of the State of Oregon—including the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, and associated government counsel funded by taxpayers.
“I did not serve my country and spend my later years advocating for constitutional rights simply to abandon a legitimate legal dispute because the government has more attorneys and resources than I do,” Minnix stated. “All I am asking is for a fair opportunity to present my claims with meaningful legal assistance. This is no longer about obtaining a political victory. It is about accountability, fair treatment, and ensuring that Oregon’s statewide recall process is clear, accessible, and understandable to every eligible voter.”
He has prepared or intends to pursue filings requesting that the federal court recruit pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), grant limited extensions as needed, and provide disability-related procedural accommodations (such as written rather than oral conferral with opposing counsel). These requests remain subject to the court’s discretion.
Background on the Lawsuit
The case, William H. Minnix v. Tobias Read, Oregon Secretary of State, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-AB, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. It challenges the handling and wording of statewide recall petition materials. The court has allowed certain constitutional issues to proceed; those rulings do not constitute a final determination on the merits.
Minnix, a disabled Air Force veteran living in La Pine, has stated that he will continue to pursue judicial resolution. He maintains that senior citizens, disabled veterans, and people with disabilities should not face government litigation tactics that exacerbate their conditions, and that taxpayer-funded resources should not be used to intimidate citizens seeking clearer election-related processes.

Media Contact:
William H. Minnix
Plaintiff, Pro Se
La Pine, Oregon
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 (458) 315-2939
Case Information:
William H. Minnix v. Tobias Read, Oregon Secretary of State, in his official capacity
United States District Court, District of Oregon
Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-AB
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

State Of Oregon Threatens Countersuit Against Disabled Veteran - 10/16/26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
State of Oregon Threatens Countersuit Against Disabled Veteran Plaintiff in Near-Settlement of Recall Petition Lawsuit, Triggering Severe Mental Health Crisis
LA PINE, OREGON — William H. Minnix, a 71-year-old disabled United States Air Force veteran and self-represented plaintiff, announced today that a near-settlement of his federal lawsuit against Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read collapsed after the State offered prospective changes to statewide recall forms and instructions—while simultaneously threatening to countersue him if he refused to drop the case and accept their terms.
The threatened countersuit, Minnix states, directly contributed to a severe mental health crisis on October 15, 2026, requiring immediate intervention by the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Crisis Line. Minnix, who has expended his time, personal funds, and resources pursuing clearer recall petition language, reports that the State’s approach dismissed his sacrifices, his status as a senior citizen and disabled veteran, and the serious health consequences of the litigation.
“No veteran should have to choose between protecting his health and pursuing his constitutional rights,” Minnix stated. “I am grateful for the VA professionals who intervened and continue to support me. My determination to pursue the case remains, but I recognize that I need legal assistance.”
Near-Settlement and Countersuit Threat
According to Minnix, the Oregon Secretary of State’s office indicated willingness to revise the wording and instructions on future statewide recall petition forms—the core issue at the heart of the lawsuit. During the prior gubernatorial recall effort, Minnix contends the existing language created widespread confusion. Volunteers and signature gatherers, relying on the printed instructions, shredded valid signatures because they believed signers were restricted to their own county, city, or district of registration. The Secretary of State provided no clarifying guidance, Minnix maintains, which is precisely what he has sought to correct for all future petitions.
Rather than resolve the matter on terms that acknowledged those problems and his efforts, the State’s settlement posture included the threat of a countersuit if Minnix continued the litigation without accepting their proposal. Minnix describes this as an attempt to leverage the State’s superior legal resources against a pro se, disabled senior citizen in order to force abandonment of the claims.
He further states that the State took no meaningful account of his disabilities, his request for accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the cumulative physical, financial, and emotional toll of the case. The October 15 crisis, he reports, required VA intervention; he remains under continuing VA mental-health support.
Unequal Resources and Request for Court Assistance
Minnix emphasizes the disparity between one disabled, self-represented veteran and the full legal apparatus of the State of Oregon—including the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, and associated government counsel funded by taxpayers.
“I did not serve my country and spend my later years advocating for constitutional rights simply to abandon a legitimate legal dispute because the government has more attorneys and resources than I do,” Minnix stated. “All I am asking is for a fair opportunity to present my claims with meaningful legal assistance. This is no longer about obtaining a political victory. It is about accountability, fair treatment, and ensuring that Oregon’s statewide recall process is clear, accessible, and understandable to every eligible voter.”
He has prepared or intends to pursue filings requesting that the federal court recruit pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), grant limited extensions as needed, and provide disability-related procedural accommodations (such as written rather than oral conferral with opposing counsel). These requests remain subject to the court’s discretion.
Background on the Lawsuit
The case, William H. Minnix v. Tobias Read, Oregon Secretary of State, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-AB, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. It challenges the handling and wording of statewide recall petition materials. The court has allowed certain constitutional issues to proceed; those rulings do not constitute a final determination on the merits.
Minnix, a disabled Air Force veteran living in La Pine, has stated that he will continue to pursue judicial resolution. He maintains that senior citizens, disabled veterans, and people with disabilities should not face government litigation tactics that exacerbate their conditions, and that taxpayer-funded resources should not be used to intimidate citizens seeking clearer election-related processes.

Media Contact:
William H. Minnix
Plaintiff, Pro Se
La Pine, Oregon
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +1 (458) 315-2939
Case Information:
William H. Minnix v. Tobias Read, Oregon Secretary of State, in his official capacity
United States District Court, District of Oregon
Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-AB