Monthlong Oregon legislative session wraps up with passage of key bills

In just 31 days, Oregon lawmakers ended the 2024 legislative session. They passed bills with bipartisan support that targeted affordable housing, homelessness, campaign finance and the fentanyl crisis. They also delivered on Gov. Tina Kotek’s top legislative priority with a $376 million housing package to boost affordable housing construction, help counties acquire land to develop properties and expand emergency shelters for people experiencing homelessness.

The governor has already announced she will sign into law HB 4002, which effectively ends Oregon’s experiment with drug decriminalization under Measure 110. But there were limits to that bipartisan cooperation, such as when Republicans blocked passage of a bill which would have made Oregon the first state in the nation to restrict corporate and private equity takeover of medical clinics. OPB political reporters Lauren Dake and Dirk VanderHart join us for a look at the key developments from the short legislative session.

Note: The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. The 2024 legislative session ended on Thursday night after an action-packed 31 days. Some short sessions are focused on budget tweaks or small policy changes. This one looked, from the outside at least, more like a long session squeezed into one month. Lawmakers recriminalized illicit drugs, enacted campaign finance restrictions for the first time and passed a large housing and homelessness package. OPB political reporters Lauren Dake and Dirk VanderHart join us now for a recap. It’s good to see both of you in person.

Lauren Dake: Nice to be here, Dave.

Dirk VanderHart: Hey, Dave.

Miller: Lauren, what was your headline from the session?

Dake: It was a consequential session. They did a lot. You said it in the intro: they made small amounts of illicit drugs illegal. They put limits on political contributions. They made a big investment in housing. And I think the real headline for me was they managed to do all of this without the partisan gridlock that we have gotten so used to seeing in Salem.

Miller: I want to hear more about that. Dirk, what about you? Your headline?

VanderHart: I think for me, it’s that ballot measures can be extremely potent motivators if the politics are right. This was, as Lauren said, one of the most consequential short sessions in state history. And I think that’s for one central reason, which was that lawmakers felt forced to act on drug policy as well as campaign finance, without ballot measures that were pushing more forceful policies than Democrats wanted. I think it’s very hard to imagine them doing as much as they did.

Miller: Lauren, we haven’t talked that much on this show about the housing bill - something that was arguably the governor’s biggest priority, something you’ve been doing a lot of reporting on. Can you just give us a sense for the scale of what passed, compared to what Tina Kotek first put forward?

Dake: The governor first put forward a $500 million investment - all for housing - and really, lawmakers came up with $376 million and largely gave her what she asked for. They cut out some bureaucracy, which saved some money. But the money that is there is for a wide range of projects that are expected to help this housing crisis. So one major thing it will do [is] it will create a new office, the Housing [Accountability] and Production Office, which is meant to help local government streamline the building process and work with developers to avoid bureaucratic hurdles that slow down building.

This package is also expected to create more middle income or moderate housing. The governor said she wants to be able to see firefighters and teachers who serve certain communities to be able to live in those communities. And it carves out money for projects that are so called shovel-ready, so they’re ready to start breaking ground and building immediately.

This latest housing package, plus the investments that lawmakers have made in previous sessions…there’s just no question that the state is playing a more aggressive role in housing with Kotek as governor.

Miller: What does the bill do specifically to address homelessness?

Dake: It has about $130 million to help people who don’t have homes and it funnels that money into, again, a wide range of projects. It will put money toward existing shelters. I know on your show you’ve talked about Project Turnkey, that’s the hotels that were turned into shelters during the pandemic. Some of this money would help those keep going. It would also help fund navigation centers, which are these hubs to help people figure out how to get different services that they’re eligible for. It also has money to help expand capacity for recovery housing projects, which right now there’s a huge shortage in the state for that type of housing.

Miller: What about renters?

Dake: There is money in the package to help renters with eviction services, people who are at risk of rent increases that they might not be able to pay, there’s money that’s going to be in the package for that. This is not renters, but there’s also money in the package to help low-income homeowners, money to help put air conditioners or air filters in their homes or even make some larger home improvements, if it makes their energy usage and energy bills lower.

Miller: One of the big issues that we talked about last year, and I think lawmakers were focused on once again, is where they can build. What’s happening with the urban growth boundary (UGB)?

Dake: This was really one of the more interesting pieces of this bill because it would basically let qualifying cities sidestep the state’s land-use laws and bring in more land inside the urban growth boundary, in order to develop it faster. Going through the current urban growth boundary process can be litigious, it can be lengthy. But people feel like those land-use laws are really what make Oregon so special. The reasons why we have beaches and forests and farms and why the state isn’t just one big massive strip mall. So this was really hard for some Democrats, the idea of bypassing state land use laws.

But what the bill will do is it will let cities with a population greater than 25,000 people bring in 100 acres without going through the UGB process. And cities with fewer than 25,000 people, they can bring in 50 acres. Cities still have to meet a long list of criteria and they have to guarantee a certain percentage of the housing is affordable. And so in the end, most Democrats really warmed up to this idea, but it was definitely a sticking point early in the process.

Miller: Dirk, I want to go back to that issue you brought up at the beginning, your theme, which is the clarifying impact of looming ballot measures spurring lawmakers to action. How do you think that affected the process, specifically for overturning Measure 110, for drug recrimination?

VanderHart: I think it incontrovertibly pushed Democrats farther than many of them would have preferred. That’s because if they pushed changes to Measure 110 that were deemed too weak, there was always a risk that this coalition that involves some of the state’s most wealthy and well-connected people, would put a ballot measure on the November ballot and that voters were likely to pass it.

So that’s the reason why we saw Democrats moving from their initial position, which was drug possession should be a maximum 30 days in jail, to this stronger crime where now it’s a maximum of six months in jail. Once they got on board with that, many law enforcement agencies and whatnot agreed, and that seems to have diffused this ballot measure - when Governor Tina Kotek signs it.

Miller: So she has said she’s going to sign it. How would you describe overall the governor’s role in this legislative session?

VanderHart: I think limited. The governor was very upfront ahead of session that she would only be introducing one bill. That’s the housing bill that you and Lauren were talking about. That was clearly her focus this year. And what we’ve heard is that that meant her role in the other big issues of session, especially this Measure 110 thing, was minimal.

As I say, I think she seems to have been content to allow the lawmakers crafting this bill to negotiate it without having that much of a role in what it ultimately looks like. I think she was probably more engaged in the campaign finance discussions that happened, but it doesn’t seem her office had a huge role in crafting that either. So housing was the governor’s big focus.

Miller: Lauren, you mentioned earlier that you were really struck by the bipartisanship of this session. How do you think years of recent Republican walkouts - last year being the record one - affected this year’s short session?

Dake: Well, at the end of this session, Senate Republican Leader, Tim Knopp from Bend, who led the Republicans on the longest legislative walkout in state history, said he believes that that walkout really set the tone for this session. The State Supreme Court has already ruled that those Republicans can’t run again. He said that he felt like early on if he didn’t have a voice, if his caucus didn’t have a voice in the process, they had nothing to lose by walking out again. And he credits that as part of the reason why Democrats worked with Republicans and why they were able to get so much done. And you know, he makes a good point, but they could have walked, Democrats did negotiate.

But I also think that a lot of the issues that were addressed this session - Measure 110 roll back, campaign finance, housing - the public really wanted lawmakers to address those issues. So Republicans also had public opinion in their corner. And like Dirk said, there was this very real looming threat of ballot initiative. So Democrats had that pressure to negotiate as well, because as we have seen, a walkout can just derail everything.

Miller: Dirk, one of the bills closest to the kinds of hot-button issues that have led to walkouts in recent years was the one about school libraries. It would have made it harder for districts to ban books because those books feature, say, members of various protected groups. What happened with that bill?

VanderHart: It died. This bill, for me, was one of the surprises of the session, just because, as Lauren suggested, Democrats were largely steering clear of these controversial partisan issues to make sure we didn’t see another walkout. But this is a bill that stirred up some of that angst. Democrats said they were merely trying to make sure books weren’t banned for inappropriate ideological reasons. Some Republicans said they were worried this bill would have taken away parental control of what their kids are seeing and also forced schools to allow books that they considered indoctrination.

But in the end, it wasn’t any of these arguments that doomed this bill. It was normal legislative process. Republicans used a tool that is open to them to push back when the bill could have gotten a final vote in the House. They pushed that back to Saturday at the earliest, and it turned out lawmakers didn’t want to work into the weekend. So Democrats left the bill behind.

Miller: What about the bill to ban private equity ownership of medical clinics? It’s something we talked about with our health reporter, Amelia Templeton, about two weeks ago.

VanderHart: Yes, the same basic thing actually, but a little more extreme. This was a very complex bill, as I’m sure you guys discussed, about lawmakers wanting to limit corporate ownership of medical practices. Republicans once again used this tool called the minority report, to push back when a likely early vote could happen, pushed it back to Saturday. Democrats wanted to adjourn on Thursday.

Miller: All right. Lauren, one more thing, apropos of our clock change yesterday. It seemed maybe there was gonna be, finally, a passed bill in the Oregon Legislature to say, no, we’re not going to change our clocks anymore. That didn’t happen. What happened?

Dake: You might say the clock ran out on that one as well. [Laughter] Sorry. Sorry, but it really did. The Senate narrowly approved that measure. It would have put Oregon on permanent daylight saving time, if Washington and California did the same. By the time it got to the House, it was near the end of session, and I think it was just too heavy of a lift for the house to tackle at that stage. It was a very contentious bill. So, we will keep springing forward and falling back for the foreseeable future.

Miller: [Laughter] Dad jokes from mom, I like it.

Dirk, before we say goodbye, do you think that the spirit of bipartisanship that you’re both talking about - forced or not - is gonna carry over into next year?

VanderHart: People in the Capitol love to say this, we hear it all the time: Elections have consequences. So, between now and next year’s long session, there will be an election that determines the balance of power in the State House and Senate and which party is in control. I think it’s likely Democrats will retain a majority, but depending on how the election goes, we could see a leadership shake up. We have a brand new House Speaker in Julie Fahey. If she somehow fumbles the ball and loses a bunch of seats, maybe she’s not the speaker next year, or maybe some other things change.

In the Senate, I think we clearly have a Republican leader on his way out,  Senator Tim Knopp. He can’t run anymore because he walked out last year. So what we’ve learned in that building is that personalities can matter a lot. And if the leaders aren’t getting along, that can really impact things. The other factor that impacts things is the issues that lawmakers take up. If Democrats introduce a gun bill, introduce an abortion bill, that has the power to really meaningfully change the vibe in the Capitol. So it’s all going to be up to that.

Miller: Dirk and Lauren, thanks very much.

Dake / VanderHart: Thanks, Dave.

Miller: Dirk VanderHart and Lauren Dake are members of OPB’s political reporting team.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.