Oregon Freedom Amendment

Emergency Messages as of 10:32 PM, Sun. Aug 30

No information currently posted.

Subscribe to receive FlashAlert messages from Oregon Freedom Amendment.

Manage my existing Subscription

News Release

Oregon Freedom Amendment Challenges Draft Ballot Title For Failure To Accurately Describe Constitutional Amendment (Photo) - 08/30/26

PRESS RELEASE

Oregon Freedom Amendment Challenges Draft Ballot Title for Failure to Accurately Describe Constitutional Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 30, 2026

Chief Petitioner Files Formal Objections With Secretary of State and Attorney General

SALEM, OREGON — Kari Goodheart, Chief Petitioner of Oregon Freedom Amendment Initiative Petition 2028-025, has formally challenged the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title issued by the Oregon Attorney General.

The objections focus on whether the draft ballot title complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2) and (3), which require the caption, “yes” result, “no” result and summary to accurately identify the measure and clearly explain its effects to Oregon voters. The “yes” and “no” statements must also use the same terms and be written in parallel language to the extent practicable.

The Draft Title Does Not Accurately Reflect the Measure

The ballot title cannot be evaluated apart from the measure's own words.

IP 2028-025 expressly establishes an individual, fundamental constitutional 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.

Yet the draft “yes” statement leaves out trapping, raising livestock and cultivating crops, even though those activities are included in the “no” statement and summary.

The draft caption likewise fails to reasonably identify the full subject matter of the amendment by omitting trapping and other agricultural activities expressly included in the measure.

The Summary Understates the Rights and Says the Effect Is "Unclear"

The draft summary places significant emphasis on restrictions and prohibitions while failing to clearly state the amendment's primary effect: creating a constitutional right.

Most concerning, the summary concludes:

“Measure's effect on current law is unclear.”

Goodheart's formal comments request that this language be removed. The amendment itself clearly establishes a constitutional right and specifies how that right may be regulated. Whether individual existing laws would survive that new constitutional standard is a matter of later legal application; it does not make the amendment's own effect unclear.

Ballot Title Must Be Revised

“The people of Oregon deserve a ballot title that tells them clearly what they are voting on,” said Kari Goodheart, Chief Petitioner of the Oregon Freedom Amendment.

“The Attorney General's draft uses different lists in the yes and no statements, leaves protected activities out of the yes statement, understates the constitutional rights created by the amendment, and then tells voters that its effect is unclear. That does not provide voters with the clear and consistent information Oregon law requires.”

Goodheart has formally requested that the Attorney General revise the ballot title to use consistent terminology, accurately describe the constitutional right created by IP 2028-025, properly explain the existing legal framework in the “no” statement, and remove the assertion that the amendment's effect is unclear.

Supreme Court Review Remains Available

Oregon law provides a specific remedy when an elector believes a certified ballot title does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035.

An elector who timely submitted written comments on the draft ballot title may petition the Oregon Supreme Court seeking a different ballot title. The court reviews whether the certified title substantially complies with the statutory requirements.

Goodheart has submitted her objections during the statutory comment period, preserving her right to seek Supreme Court review if the ballot title is certified without adequately addressing these objections. Her written comments expressly preserve those arguments for potential review under ORS 250.085.

The Oregon Freedom Amendment is asking for a ballot title that accurately describes the amendment—not one that leaves Oregon voters to determine for themselves what a “yes” vote actually means.

Initiative Petition 2028-025
Proposed Election: November 7, 2028
Website: www.oregonfreedomamendment.org

Attached Media Files: Public Comment,

Oregon Freedom Amendment Challenges Draft Ballot Title For Failure To Accurately Describe Constitutional Amendment (Photo) - 08/30/26

PRESS RELEASE

Oregon Freedom Amendment Challenges Draft Ballot Title for Failure to Accurately Describe Constitutional Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 30, 2026

Chief Petitioner Files Formal Objections With Secretary of State and Attorney General

SALEM, OREGON — Kari Goodheart, Chief Petitioner of Oregon Freedom Amendment Initiative Petition 2028-025, has formally challenged the legal sufficiency of the draft ballot title issued by the Oregon Attorney General.

The objections focus on whether the draft ballot title complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2) and (3), which require the caption, “yes” result, “no” result and summary to accurately identify the measure and clearly explain its effects to Oregon voters. The “yes” and “no” statements must also use the same terms and be written in parallel language to the extent practicable.

The Draft Title Does Not Accurately Reflect the Measure

The ballot title cannot be evaluated apart from the measure's own words.

IP 2028-025 expressly establishes an individual, fundamental constitutional 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.

Yet the draft “yes” statement leaves out trapping, raising livestock and cultivating crops, even though those activities are included in the “no” statement and summary.

The draft caption likewise fails to reasonably identify the full subject matter of the amendment by omitting trapping and other agricultural activities expressly included in the measure.

The Summary Understates the Rights and Says the Effect Is "Unclear"

The draft summary places significant emphasis on restrictions and prohibitions while failing to clearly state the amendment's primary effect: creating a constitutional right.

Most concerning, the summary concludes:

“Measure's effect on current law is unclear.”

Goodheart's formal comments request that this language be removed. The amendment itself clearly establishes a constitutional right and specifies how that right may be regulated. Whether individual existing laws would survive that new constitutional standard is a matter of later legal application; it does not make the amendment's own effect unclear.

Ballot Title Must Be Revised

“The people of Oregon deserve a ballot title that tells them clearly what they are voting on,” said Kari Goodheart, Chief Petitioner of the Oregon Freedom Amendment.

“The Attorney General's draft uses different lists in the yes and no statements, leaves protected activities out of the yes statement, understates the constitutional rights created by the amendment, and then tells voters that its effect is unclear. That does not provide voters with the clear and consistent information Oregon law requires.”

Goodheart has formally requested that the Attorney General revise the ballot title to use consistent terminology, accurately describe the constitutional right created by IP 2028-025, properly explain the existing legal framework in the “no” statement, and remove the assertion that the amendment's effect is unclear.

Supreme Court Review Remains Available

Oregon law provides a specific remedy when an elector believes a certified ballot title does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035.

An elector who timely submitted written comments on the draft ballot title may petition the Oregon Supreme Court seeking a different ballot title. The court reviews whether the certified title substantially complies with the statutory requirements.

Goodheart has submitted her objections during the statutory comment period, preserving her right to seek Supreme Court review if the ballot title is certified without adequately addressing these objections. Her written comments expressly preserve those arguments for potential review under ORS 250.085.

The Oregon Freedom Amendment is asking for a ballot title that accurately describes the amendment—not one that leaves Oregon voters to determine for themselves what a “yes” vote actually means.

Initiative Petition 2028-025
Proposed Election: November 7, 2028
Website: www.oregonfreedomamendment.org

Attached Media Files: Public Comment,