Oregon Freedom Amendment

Emergency Messages as of 2:44 PM, Wed. Sep 30

No information currently posted.

Subscribe to receive FlashAlert messages from Oregon Freedom Amendment.

Manage my existing Subscription

News Release

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,