Oregon Freedom Amendment

Emergency Messages as of 1:03 AM, Sat. Oct 17

No information currently posted.

Subscribe to receive FlashAlert messages from Oregon Freedom Amendment.

Manage my existing Subscription

News Release

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: oregonforthepeople@proton.me
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: oregonforthepeople@proton.me
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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Chief Petitioner Will Not Appeal Certified Ballot Title For Oregon Freedom Amendment (Photo) - 09/30/26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2026
Contact: Kari Goodheart, Chief Petitioner
Initiative Petition 2028-025 — Oregon Freedom Amendment
www.oregonfreedomamendment.org

 

Chief Petitioner Will Not Appeal Certified Ballot Title; Campaign Turns to Funding and Circulation

SALEM, Ore. — The Attorney General certified a ballot title for Initiative Petition 2028-025, the Oregon Freedom Amendment, on September 25, 2026. Electors have until October 9 to petition the Oregon Supreme Court for review of that title. Chief Petitioner Kari Goodheart will not file an appeal.

“The fight over wording is not worth the cost — in money, in time, or in the energy this campaign needs for the work that actually puts a measure in front of voters,” Goodheart said. “The real battle is funding this petition and printing the resources volunteers need to collect signatures.”

The certified summary tells voters the measure’s “effect on current law is unclear.” That line is the core omission. Oregon’s highest court has already said what current law is.

In State v. Pulos, 64 Or. 92, 95 (1913), language the Oregon Supreme Court has repeated since, the Court wrote that “no person has an absolute property right in game or fish while in a state of nature and at large; … the taking of them is not a right, but is a privilege, which may be restricted, prohibited, or conditioned, as the law-making power may see fit.” Title to wildlife is held by the state in its sovereign capacity, in trust for the people — not as an individual right belonging to Oregonians themselves. Today the legislature can ban or severely restrict hunting without surviving heightened constitutional review.

The Freedom Amendment would change that legal category. It would give the people of Oregon an individual, fundamental right to hunt, fish, trap, farm, ranch, raise livestock, cultivate crops, harvest natural resources, and engage in generally accepted practices of agriculture, animal husbandry, and scientifically based wildlife management. It would constrain how the state may regulate those rights. Regulations would have to be reasonable and necessary — narrowly tailored to conservation, public safety, or the protection of public health and property rights, and consistent with sustainable, science-based practices.

The measure would not abolish seasons, tags, hunter education, or trespass laws. The change is the legal floor: hunting and the other listed activities would be protected rights the state must justify restricting, instead of privileges the state may withhold. Courts would treat them more like other enumerated individual rights than like a license. That is a solid constitutional defense for the people’s rights in Oregon — not an uncertain one.

Goodheart submitted detailed comments during the public-comment period. Those objections are on the record. She will not spend the campaign’s limited resources litigating a title that still leaves voters with the impression that the legal effect of a constitutional right is a mystery.

Supporters who want this measure on the November 7, 2028 ballot are asked to help with funding and printing so signature gathering can move forward as soon as circulation is authorized.

Donate and volunteer: www.oregonfreedomamendment.org

Attached Media Files: ofa_ballot_title.pdf,

Chief Petitioner Will Not Appeal Certified Ballot Title For Oregon Freedom Amendment (Photo) - 09/30/26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2026
Contact: Kari Goodheart, Chief Petitioner
Initiative Petition 2028-025 — Oregon Freedom Amendment
www.oregonfreedomamendment.org

 

Chief Petitioner Will Not Appeal Certified Ballot Title; Campaign Turns to Funding and Circulation

SALEM, Ore. — The Attorney General certified a ballot title for Initiative Petition 2028-025, the Oregon Freedom Amendment, on September 25, 2026. Electors have until October 9 to petition the Oregon Supreme Court for review of that title. Chief Petitioner Kari Goodheart will not file an appeal.

“The fight over wording is not worth the cost — in money, in time, or in the energy this campaign needs for the work that actually puts a measure in front of voters,” Goodheart said. “The real battle is funding this petition and printing the resources volunteers need to collect signatures.”

The certified summary tells voters the measure’s “effect on current law is unclear.” That line is the core omission. Oregon’s highest court has already said what current law is.

In State v. Pulos, 64 Or. 92, 95 (1913), language the Oregon Supreme Court has repeated since, the Court wrote that “no person has an absolute property right in game or fish while in a state of nature and at large; … the taking of them is not a right, but is a privilege, which may be restricted, prohibited, or conditioned, as the law-making power may see fit.” Title to wildlife is held by the state in its sovereign capacity, in trust for the people — not as an individual right belonging to Oregonians themselves. Today the legislature can ban or severely restrict hunting without surviving heightened constitutional review.

The Freedom Amendment would change that legal category. It would give the people of Oregon an individual, fundamental right to hunt, fish, trap, farm, ranch, raise livestock, cultivate crops, harvest natural resources, and engage in generally accepted practices of agriculture, animal husbandry, and scientifically based wildlife management. It would constrain how the state may regulate those rights. Regulations would have to be reasonable and necessary — narrowly tailored to conservation, public safety, or the protection of public health and property rights, and consistent with sustainable, science-based practices.

The measure would not abolish seasons, tags, hunter education, or trespass laws. The change is the legal floor: hunting and the other listed activities would be protected rights the state must justify restricting, instead of privileges the state may withhold. Courts would treat them more like other enumerated individual rights than like a license. That is a solid constitutional defense for the people’s rights in Oregon — not an uncertain one.

Goodheart submitted detailed comments during the public-comment period. Those objections are on the record. She will not spend the campaign’s limited resources litigating a title that still leaves voters with the impression that the legal effect of a constitutional right is a mystery.

Supporters who want this measure on the November 7, 2028 ballot are asked to help with funding and printing so signature gathering can move forward as soon as circulation is authorized.

Donate and volunteer: www.oregonfreedomamendment.org

Attached Media Files: ofa_ballot_title.pdf,