Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on July 19, 2016 - 4:56pm
By David Rogers, Executive Director
July 19, 2016 - Earlier this year, I told you that we were fighting three anti-immigrant ballot initiatives that were the work of the extremist group, Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR,) and their allies. Today, I am happy to tell you that all three measures failed to qualify for the 2016 ballot.
However, our work is not over. OFIR has vowed to return next election cycle with their anti-immigrant agenda. Through their deep ties to white nationalist groups and funders, OFIR will continue to target immigrant families in Oregon.
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on September 9, 2015 - 11:55am
Opposing Discrimination and Xenophobia
By Executive Director David Rogers
As presidential candidates spread fear-mongering rhetoric about immigrant communities, a local city councilor in Springfield, Oregon, recently opposed the appointment of a minister to a police advisory committee stating that the committee didn’t need “another minority element.” The minister is Pacific Islander.
We need a very different climate and discourse for addressing issues of race and cultural differences in our country and state. Oregon could be facing several ballot measures in 2016 steeped in anti-immigrant sentiment while offering policies that would harm all Oregonians.
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on October 17, 2014 - 12:45pm
We urge you to vote YES on Measure 88 for safe roads
Oregon legislators from both sides of the aisle came together last year to pass the Driver Card law because they knew that it would make Oregon roads and communities safer. They voted “YES” despite differences in their views about immigration reform. They voted “YES” for thousands of Oregon parents, seniors, students, and workers who need to drive every day in our state. As Governor Kitzhaber said earlier this week, “Driver cards for safer roads was a good idea then – and it’s a good idea now.”
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on October 13, 2014 - 4:38pm
Oregon Ballot Measure Recommendations
Oregon ballots have arrived! We have taken positions on four ballot measures that will impact civil liberties and/or civil rights in Oregon. Please check out our recommendations -- and thank you for exercising your right to vote.
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on December 31, 2013 - 12:49pm
By Sarah Armstrong, Outreach Coordinator
It has been quite a year on the civil liberties front lines in Oregon. We picked our top eight civil liberties victories of 2013. Not surprisingly, intersections of privacy and technology make the most appearances on our list, but we also had wins for the rights of transgender people, immigrant rights, free speech, due process, and racial justice.
It’s hard to believe, but some employers require that folks hand over their social media passwords, allow them to “shoulder surf” their online accounts, or mandate that they “friend” them on sites like Facebook. We helped pass a law in Oregon that prohibits employers (and public colleges) from that type of snooping.
Private activities that would never be intruded upon offline should not receive less privacy protection simply because they take place online. An employer would never be allowed to read an applicant’s diary or postal mail, listen in at private gatherings with friends, or look at that person’s private videos and photo albums. They should not expect the right to do the electronic equivalent.
#7 – No, you may not radio track Oregon students! (Well, at least not without telling us first.)
In November 2012, a Texas student was kicked out of school for failure to wear a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that was distributed for tracking attendance. RFID tags are tiny computer chips that are more commonly used to track everything from cattle to commercial products moving through warehouses. Oregon legislators took notice and went to work on a new law to prevent this from happening here.
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on April 2, 2013 - 10:30am
By Becky Straus, Legislative Director
Today in front of a packed room of supporters, Gov. John Kitzhaber signed into law HB 2787, a law that brings access to in-state tuition to all Oregonians, regardless of immigration status. The governor’s action marked the culmination of an over ten-year-long campaign for tuition equity in Oregon. It is about time.
A Democratic majority in both chambers and the rising political influence of Latinos in the electorate contributed to this great victory, but ultimately it was the leadership of a few key legislators that cleared the path for this bill’s passage. Sen. Frank Morse (R-Albany) and Sen. David Nelson (R-Pendleton), each now retired from the legislature, departed from the prevailing view of many in their caucus, and co-sponsored the tuition equity bill in the 2011 session. Their sponsorship demonstrated to Oregonians that tuition equity is about fairness rather than partisan politics. And their public support for the bill invited their colleagues to follow so that, despite the fact that Morse and Nelson are no longer in the legislature, eight Republicans (including Nelson’s successor) helped tuition equity pass in 2013.
The time is long overdue for policy makers to de-link access to driver licenses with an applicant’s ability to prove lawful presence in the country and instead recognize that obtaining a driver license should be solely dependent upon road safety factors. Does the person know the rules of the road? Is that person insured?
Submitted by ACLU of Oregon on June 27, 2012 - 10:30am
By Becky Straus, Legislative Director
Following Monday’s Supreme Court decision in State v. Arizona, it is more important than ever that Oregonians are aware of and understand the long-standing legal protection in our state that ensures that Oregon will not become Arizona.
Section 2(b) of Arizona’s controversial S.B. 1070 requires Arizona police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that person is not in the country legally. While the Supreme Court decisively struck down the remainder of the unconstitutional and anti-immigrant provisions of Arizona’s law, it declined to strike down this “show me your papers” provision, sending the issue back to the lower courts to rule on whether the law could be interpreted narrowly enough to avoid constitutional violations. The Supreme Court’s decision not to immediately strike down this portion of S.B. 1070 is a dangerous mistake that immediately puts in jeopardy the rights of innocent individuals, as it is very likely that implementation of the law will result in racial profiling and prolonged detention of people in Arizona.