SB 1530
Expands the crime of aggravated harassment to include threats concerning public officials in specified circumstances.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Session
2026 Regular Session
At the request of
(at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Veterans, Emergency Management, Federal and World Affairs)
Committee
Rules
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
53%
Oppose
47%
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill expands Oregon’s law against aggravated harassment to include threats directed at public officials. Specifically, it criminalizes intentionally conveying a telephonic, electronic, or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on a public official or their family, provided the threat is related to the official’s duties or position. The offense is a Class C felony and carries a potential sentence of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $125,000, or both. An emergency declaration allows the law to take effect immediately upon passage.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
Emergency Management, Federal and World Affairs Senate Interim Committee on Veterans
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of Senate Bill 1530 argue that the legislation is necessary to protect public officials and their families from intimidation, harassment, and serious threats due to their official duties. The bill aims to expand the crime of aggravated harassment to include such threats, providing much-needed protections for those who serve the public. Proponents believe this expansion will help restore law and order in Oregon, particularly in light of growing credible threats against public officials, as seen in Lane County. By strengthening existing laws, supporters hope to deter aggressive behavior and ensure that elected officials can carry out their duties without fear of harm or retaliation.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of the proposed law argue that it provides excessive protection for public officials, undermining existing laws that criminalize similar offenses. They believe that the legislation is unnecessary, as Oregon already has clear laws covering the proposed topics, and that introducing new rules would waste taxpayer money. Critics also contend that the bills do not provide adequate protections for public officials, particularly those facing threats of bodily harm, and that existing laws are sufficient to address the issue. Furthermore, some that certain provisions, such as requiring law enforcement to wear masks or unmasking federal agents, are discriminatory, unfair, or unnecessary, and would lead to arbitrary and unequal enforcement, creating a special class of citizens for public officials.
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.