HB 3376
Establishes the office of the district defender in each judicial district.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
0%
Oppose
100%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill establishes the Office of the District Defender in each of Oregon’s judicial districts. The office will be overseen by a district defender, who reports to the Oregon Public Defense Commission’s executive director and receives compensation comparable to a circuit court judge’s. The bill also modifies how the Oregon Public Defense Commission can contract with public defense service providers and outlines the responsibilities of the district defender, including supervising personnel, overseeing case assignments, and ensuring compliance with contract training requirements. It also sets a timeline for establishing these offices in various judicial districts.
Key provisions
- Creates the Office of the District Defender in each judicial district.
- The district defender’s compensation will be equal to that of a circuit court judge.
- The district defender will hire and supervise personnel.
- The Oregon Public Defense Commission can modify its contracting with public defense providers.
- The district defender will oversee case assignments and provide oversight for panel attorneys.
- The district defender will maintain data on case assignments and transmit it to the commission.
- Deputy district defenders may be hired.
- Establishes a timeline for establishing offices in specific judicial districts.
Who is affected
- Criminal defendants
- Oregon Public Defense Commission
- County governments
- Judicial districts
- Oregon attorneys
Notable changes
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
The Association of Oregon Counties and other opponents of HB 3376 express concerns that the bill's proposed requirement for counties to fund a new district defender system is fiscally unsustainable. They argue that many counties are already operating with significant budget deficits, which would necessitate diverting funds from essential services to cover the costs of this new program. This, in turn, could exacerbate existing financial strain on local governments and undermine their ability to provide critical public services. Opponents also contend that the bill's one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the unique budgetary circumstances of each county, potentially leading to unequal distribution of resources and undue burdens on some jurisdictions.
Source: Testimony Summaries