Loading policy item
HB 4002
This proposal did not become law. HB 4002 would have imposed strict numerical caps on the number of legislative measures Legislative Counsel might have drafted per regular session for odd-numbered years, capping individual legislators at 25, committees at 15, executive agencies and the Governor combined at 200, and statewide elected officials and the judiciary at 15 each. This would have directly reduced the volume of legislation entering the drafting pipeline, potentially streamlining session focus but creating a hard ceiling on policy development capacity that would have shifted legislative workflow toward prioritization and Rules Committee discretion.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 7/30/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of Introduced text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
HB 4002 would have imposed strict numerical caps on the number of legislative measures Legislative Counsel might have drafted per regular session for odd-numbered years, capping individual legislators at 25, committees at 15, executive agencies and the Governor combined at 200, and statewide elected officials and the judiciary at 15 each. This would have directly reduced the volume of legislation entering the drafting pipeline, potentially streamlining session focus but creating a hard ceiling on policy development capacity that would have shifted legislative workflow toward prioritization and Rules Committee discretion.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure aims to manage Legislative Counsel workload and prevent session gridlock by forcing requesters to prioritize high-impact legislation over voluminous drafting requests.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Restricted to drafting 25 measures per odd-numbered regular session, requiring stricter prioritization of policy proposals.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Capped at 15 measures (excluding Joint Committee on Ways and Means), limiting committee-driven legislative output.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Combined limit of 200 measures, excluding Department of Administrative Services budget implementation bills, forcing executive branch coordination on drafting priorities.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Each capped at 15 measures, constraining independent policy or procedural initiatives outside the legislative chamber.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have had to track and enforce per-session request limits across all entities, shifting operational focus to capacity management rather than unlimited drafting support.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Granted override authority to authorize additional measures on behalf of any requester, concentrating gatekeeping power over legislative volume.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Behavior: Requesters would have had to internally prioritize and sequence drafting requests to avoid exhausting session caps before critical bills are prepared.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Obligations: Legislative Counsel would have had to implement tracking mechanisms to enforce per-entity limits for the 2027 regular session and subsequent odd-numbered years.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Access: Policy development access becomes contingent on Rules Committee discretion or first-chamber passage triggers, potentially slowing niche or cross-cutting initiatives.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Enforcement: The emergency clause mandates immediate effect upon passage, though substantive caps apply only to future odd-numbered sessions, creating a transition period for workload adjustment.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Jurisdictional Scope: The measure amends Oregon statute ORS 173.130 and incorporates Oregon definitions (e.g., state agency per ORS 174.112, Judicial Department per ORS 174.113), remaining strictly an Oregon-law change without federal preemption or definition dependency.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Legislative Leadership / High-Priority Policy Sponsors
Potential effect if enacted: A legislator successfully navigates the cap to draft and pass a single, highly complex healthcare reform bill by prioritizing it over minor proposals, ensuring Legislative Counsel dedicates full resources to its precise drafting without competing workload.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Executive Agencies / Emergency Response Offices
Multiple executive agencies exhaust their combined 200-measure limit on routine regulatory would have updated early in the session, leaving no capacity for emergency disaster response legislation until the next odd-numbered year, despite the Rules Committee override mechanism.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: bill_text
Sources · Introduced
Capping drafting requests would have reduced Legislative Counsel workload and might have prioritized substantive legislation but risks bottlenecking policy development during complex sessions or concentrating discretionary override power in Rules Committees.
Potential effect if enacted: Streamlined session focus by reducing voluminous, low-impact bill introductions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Forced executive and legislative coordination on drafting priorities, potentially improving policy coherence.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Hard ceiling on policy development capacity might have delayed or block critical legislation during high-demand sessions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Concentration of override authority in Rules Committees might have reduced transparency and equitable access to drafting resources.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is strictly derived from the provided introduced bill text. No external assumptions or legislative intent claims are made beyond explicit statutory language. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, the amendment would eliminate all caps on Legislative Counsel measure requests for legislators and committees while simultaneously stripping executive branch agencies and other statewide constitutional officers of their direct authority to file measures with the Legislative Counsel. It would centralize legislative drafting and filing control within the Legislative Assembly, require executive initiatives to route through legislative sponsors, and create a new Road User Fee Task Force to study highway revenue alternatives subject to standard legislative filing deadlines.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to reduce executive branch influence over the legislative docket by removing direct filing channels and caps, while simultaneously mandating a structured, legislatively controlled process for evaluating highway revenue alternatives through a new task force.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Retain direct authority to request measure preparation and filing, but lose the introduced bill's caps (25 for members, 15 for committees), potentially increasing Legislative Counsel workload and legislative control over the docket.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Lose direct filing authority under ORS 171.130(2) and measure preparation requests under ORS 173.130(2). would have to now partner with legislative members or committees to initiate measures, increasing legislative gatekeeping power.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Lose direct filing authority under ORS 171.130(2) and measure preparation requests under ORS 173.130(2). Cannot file measures independently before December 15.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Indirectly affected by the creation of a task force that would study highway revenue alternatives, gather public comment, and recommend pilot programs to the Department of Transportation and Oregon Transportation Commission.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Executive agencies would face new obligations to identify legislative sponsors and negotiate measure drafting timelines, potentially delaying policy implementation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The Legislative Counsel's operational focus would shift from executive-driven requests to member/committee-driven requests, altering workload distribution.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The new Road User Fee Task Force would incur costs for legislator per diem payments (per ORS 171.072) and other member compensation/expenses (per ORS 292.495), funded from Legislative Assembly appropriations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Task force legislative recommendations would lose the explicit statutory override of standard filing deadlines, requiring compliance with the December 15 presession filing rule in ORS 171.130.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Legislative leadership and highway revenue reform advocates
Potential effect if enacted: A unified legislative strategy successfully coordinates all highway revenue alternatives through the task force, eliminating executive branch fragmentation and ensuring all pilot programs are tested under a single, legislatively controlled timeline without competing executive proposals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Executive branch agencies and affected industries
Potential effect if enacted: Executive agencies unable to file time-sensitive regulatory or funding measures directly face prolonged policy gridlock, forcing them to rely on legislative sponsors who may deprioritize executive initiatives in favor of other agendas, effectively stalling critical transportation or administrative reforms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: inference
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Centralizing legislative drafting authority within the Assembly enhances legislative independence but would reduce executive branch agility and direct policy initiation capacity.
Would reduce executive docket inflation by removing direct filing channels and caps, streamlining legislative control over measure preparation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would establish a structured, legislatively mandated process for evaluating highway revenue alternatives with clear reporting requirements and stakeholder consultation mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would create policy bottlenecks by forcing executive agencies to rely on legislative goodwill for measure initiation, potentially delaying critical administrative or regulatory actions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would remove explicit caps on legislative measure requests, which could increase Legislative Counsel workload and resource strain without corresponding operational guidance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and introduced bill context. No external speculation or unverified claims are included. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The proposed amendment would lower statutory caps on the number of legislative measures the Legislative Counsel may prepare per odd-numbered session for most requesters, while creating new explicit drafting quotas for the Senate President, House Rules Committee, and revenue committees. Materially, it would reduce available drafting capacity for executive agencies and statewide officials, potentially slowing policy implementation and concentrating legislative drafting resources among specific leadership and fiscal entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment appears designed to reallocate the Legislative Counsel’s limited drafting capacity toward specific leadership priorities and revenue-related legislation by lowering general caps while carving out exemptions for certain committees and officers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Base drafting quota increases slightly to 30 measures per session.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Base limit drops to 10, with a conditional allowance of up to 5 additional measures only when requested jointly by the committee chair and a minority member.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Granted new explicit quotas (+15 bills/joint resolutions and +20 resolutions/concurrent resolutions each).
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Each granted a new quota of 15 additional measures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Combined drafting limit reduced from 200 to 100 measures per session.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Limits reduced from 15 to 10 measures each per session.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Requesters would need to prioritize which measures to draft, potentially delaying or abandoning lower-priority legislation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The Legislative Counsel would have to implement stricter intake tracking and triage to enforce new caps, increasing administrative oversight costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Executive agencies and statewide officials may face reduced access to free drafting services, possibly increasing reliance on external counsel or private drafters for non-exempt requests.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Enforcement relies on internal LC tracking rather than statutory penalties, creating potential compliance ambiguity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Governor & executive branch during fiscal emergency
A governor facing a severe fiscal crisis could prioritize exactly 100 critical budget and appropriations measures without competing with lower-priority agency requests, ensuring rapid implementation of emergency economic policies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Minority party committee chair
A minority party committee chair attempting to advance oversight or investigative legislation might be blocked by the 10-measure base limit and the requirement for majority-party concurrence on the additional 5, effectively stifling legislative scrutiny during a session.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The statutory language sets numerical caps but would lack automated tracking mechanisms or explicit penalties for circumvention, leaving enforcement to internal administrative discretion.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment trades broader legislative and executive branch access to Legislative Counsel drafting services for concentrated capacity among specific leadership and revenue committees. Upsides include prioritizing high-impact or leadership-driven legislation and reducing drafting bottlenecks by focusing resources on fewer, higher-priority measures. Downsides include restricting access for individual legislators, minority committees, and executive agencies, potentially delaying routine governance, oversight, or agency-initiated policy implementation.
Potential effect if enacted: Prioritizes high-impact or leadership-driven legislation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would reduce drafting bottlenecks by focusing resources on fewer, higher-priority measures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Would restrict access for individual legislators, minority committees, and executive agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Potentially delays routine governance, oversight, or agency-initiated policy implementation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly states numerical limits, exemptions, and effective dates. Analysis is grounded solely in the provided statutory language without reliance on external speculation. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment would reduce statutory caps on Legislative Counsel drafting requests for executive branch entities, committees, and statewide officials while slightly increasing individual member allowances and creating fixed drafting allocations for legislative leadership. If adopted, it would constrain executive policy drafting capacity in odd-numbered sessions starting in 2027, potentially creating bottlenecks for agency initiatives and budget implementation support, while shifting drafting resource access toward Senate and House leadership.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to rebalance Legislative Counsel workload by capping executive branch drafting requests while granting fixed allocations to legislative leadership, possibly to prioritize legislative-driven policy development and manage counsel capacity during long odd-numbered sessions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Cap increases from 25 to 30 measures per odd-numbered session, but overall drafting capacity remains constrained by Legislative Counsel workload and executive branch caps.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Base cap decreases from 15 to 10 measures, with a narrow exception allowing up to 15 if the committee chair and a minority member jointly request the additional five.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Combined cap halves from 200 to 100 measures. Measures requested by the Department of Administrative Services to implement fiscal recommendations remain exempt.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Caps decrease from 15 to 10 measures each for the Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, Commissioner of BOLI, and the Judicial Department.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Receives fixed additional allocations (+15 bills/joint resolutions and +20 resolutions/concurrent resolutions each) not available to other requesters, effectively granting disproportionate drafting access.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Requesters would need to prioritize and sequence measure submissions to avoid exhausting caps early in the session, potentially delaying statutory support for agency rulemaking or executive policy initiatives.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Legislative Counsel would face stricter quota management, requiring more rigorous tracking of request origins and types to enforce the new limits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The removal of the general Rules Committee exception and the passage-triggered additional request rule found in the introduced text would eliminate automatic drafting extensions, increasing administrative burden for requesters managing multi-chamber legislation.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Executive Branch and Policy Drafters
Potential effect if enacted: The reduced cap forces executive agencies to consolidate overlapping proposals into fewer, more comprehensive measures, streamlining the legislative docket and reducing drafting redundancy while preserving budget implementation authority through the DAS exemption.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Complex Policy Initiatives
Potential effect if enacted: A major regulatory or healthcare reform package requiring multiple interrelated bills exhausts the executive branch cap early in the session, leaving no drafting capacity for subsequent statutory amendments until the next odd-numbered year, effectively freezing implementation of critical agency mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction rests on whether requests are properly categorized and tracked against the explicit caps, versus exploiting ambiguous definitions or enforcement gaps to exceed intended limits.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure constrains executive and committee drafting capacity to prioritize legislative leadership access and manage Legislative Counsel workload, trading reduced executive flexibility for more predictable resource allocation.
Potential effect if enacted: Predictable drafting quotas reduce executive branch dominance over the legislative docket.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Fixed leadership allocations streamline priority-setting for Senate and House policy agendas.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Reduced flexibility for complex policy packages may delay statutory implementation of critical agency initiatives.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Lower caps for statewide officials and committees may limit their ability to respond to emerging legal or regulatory needs within the session.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied amendment text and introduced bill context. No external assumptions are applied. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
8 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
The packet has no adopted replacement, and proposed edits do not establish an unrelated wholesale substitute.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The packet has no adopted replacement, and proposed edits do not establish an unrelated wholesale substitute.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. ORS 173.130 is amended to read: 6 173.130. (1)(a) The Legislative Counsel shall prepare or assist in the preparation of legislative 7 measures when requested to do so by a member or committee of the Leg”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The proposed -2 amendment keeps the measure-request limit subject and was not adopted; no qualifying replacement is evidenced.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. ORS 173.130 is amended to read: 6 173.130. (1)(a) The Legislative Counsel shall prepare or assist in the preparation of legislative 7 measures when requested to do so by a member or committee of the Legislat”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for HB 4002 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
On page 1 of the printed bill, delete lines 5 through 18 and delete pages 2 2 and 3 and insert: 3 “SECTION 1.
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -4
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 173.130, ORS 173.135, ORS 174.112, ORS 174.113, ORS 283.110, Effective date.
Related proposal · Amendment -3
Medium confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 173.130, ORS 173.135, ORS 283.110, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Speaker Julie Fahey, President Rob Wagner, Representative David Gomberg, Representative Mark Owens, Representative Tawna Sanchez, Senator Janeen Sollman
Regular sponsors: Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative John Lively, Representative Ricki Ruiz, Representative Nathan Sosa, Representative Kim Wallan, Senator Anthony Broadman, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Chris Gorsek, Senator Kayse Jama, Senator Kate Lieber, Senator Deb Patterson, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Representative Cyrus Javadi
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
8 events
Full timeline
8 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Public Hearing held.
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
vider liability and safety plans EFFECT OF AMENDMENT: No amendment. BACKGROUND: House Bill 4002 (2024) established the Joint Task Force on Improving the Safety of Behavioral H
t safety plans must be tailored to the employer’s specific context. BACKGROUND: House Bill 4002 (2024) established the Joint Task Force on Improving the Safety of Behavioral H
“Digest: The Act limits the number of measure requests that may be made of LC during long regular sessions to stated numbers. The Act sets forth exceptions to those limits. The Act takes effect when signed. (Flesch Readability Score: 76.5). Limits to 25 the number of legislative measures that a member of the Legislative Assembly may ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare for a regular session of the Legislative Assembly that begins in an odd-numbered year. Limits to 15 the number of legislative measures that a committee of the Legislative Assembly may ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare for a regular session of the Legislative Assembly that begins in an odd-numbered year. Provides exceptions. Limits to 200 the combined total number of legislative measures that the Governor and state agencies under the authority of the Governor may ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare for a regular session of the Legislative Assembly that begins in an odd-numbered year. Provides exceptions. Limits to 15 the number of legislative measures that other statewide elected officials and the Judicial Department may each ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare for a regular session of the Legislative Assembly that begins in an odd-numbered year. Authorizes the Senate Rules Committee or the House Rules Committee to ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare additional measures on behalf of requesters. Authorizes the measure's requester to ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare an additional measure when the first legislative chamber passes or adopts a measure. Applies to requests for legislative measures made for the 2027 regular session and subsequent odd-numbered year regular sessions. Declares an emergency, effective on passage.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.