Oregon State Laws
✅ Law #1: HB 3187 — Job Applicant Age / Education Info Ban Before Interview
Statute / Bill: HB 3187 (2025)
Effective: Signed May 22, 2025. But parts (i.e. employer hiring practice changes) begin between May 1 and September 30, 2025 per employment-law summaries. (Jackson Lewis)
Primary Sources: Oregon Legislature; legal analysis by Jackson Lewis & Ogletree staff. (Ogletree)
📝 What it does
Employers cannot ask for age, date of birth, or graduation date from an applicant before the first interview (or, if there’s no interview, before a conditional offer. (Ogletree)
The idea is to reduce age bias and stop early screening out of candidates based on age or graduation year.
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Almost no direct cost to the state.
Employers will need to update hiring procedures, train HR/staff, revise applications. These are mostly business costs.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Older job seekers or anyone who might be discriminated against based on graduation date or age.
Affects: Employers and HR departments; applicants; recruiter platforms.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Supported by employment-law reform advocates and civil rights/compliance groups. (Jackson Lewis)
Opposition likely from business groups concerned about paperwork, liability, or slowing hiring.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Reduces bias/prejudice in early hiring stages.
Encourages focus on skills/experience over age or how long ago someone graduated.
❌ Cons:
Employers might claim the info helps assess candidate fit (e.g. experience relevant to date).
Slight administrative overhead to remove these fields from early hiring forms.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Oregon's HB 3187, effective mid-2025, stops employers from asking about age, birth date, or graduation date too early in hiring — trying to level the playing field, with modest employer adjustments required.
✅ Law #2: SB 684 — Mixed-Income & Mixed-Housing Definition Expansion
Statute / Bill: SB 684 (2025) (OLIS)
Effective: The bill requires some actions (rule-making) by January 1, 2027; some parts effective sooner (adoption and implementation date in 2025). (OLIS)
📝 What it does
Changes the legal definition of “residential housing” to include mixed-income housing (housing that includes units at different income levels) for certain state programs. (OLIS)
Requires the Housing & Community Services Department to issue low-interest short-term loans for construction of mixed-income housing. Also the Dept must adopt rules for long-term financing of residential housing by January 1, 2027. (OLIS)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
State may provide funding or guarantees for low-interest loans. Some cost of administering rules, tracking mixed income program outcomes.
Long-term financing schemes may put state exposure or risk if loans don’t perform.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Residents who need housing with rents or purchase rates tied to multiple income levels; lower- and moderate-income households.
Affects: Housing developers, local housing authorities, financial program administrators.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Backed by affordable housing advocates and legislators concerned with housing affordability.
Some developers or lenders might oppose if requirements or oversight raise project complexity.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Encourages housing diversity across income levels.
May help reduce housing cost burdens for moderate incomes.
Supports affordable housing supply and access.
❌ Cons:
Financing risk; mixed income housing often harder to profit.
Project delays due to regulation/rulemaking.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
SB 684 aims to expand what counts as “residential housing” to include mixed-income units and to enable financing for them — pushing affordability in Oregon housing, but with financing/rulemaking trade-offs.
✅ Law #3: HB 2685 — Newborn Health Screening (Cytomegalovirus) Requirement
Statute / Bill: HB 2685 (2025) (LegiScan)
Effective: September 26, 2025 (for many laws in chapter 487, etc.) (LegiScan)
📝 What it does
Requires Oregon Health Authority to provide information on screening protocol for cytomegalovirus (CMV) to hospitals and birthing centers. (LegiScan)
It means better awareness among medical staff/facilities about CMV, which is a virus that can cause health issues for newborns.
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Some administrative cost for public health authority, hospitals, birthing centers to produce/distribute info and possibly adjust protocol.
Doesn’t appear to mandate universal testing (just info sharing) so cost is lower.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Newborns and families at risk from congenital CMV; health providers with better protocols.
Affects: Hospitals, birthing centers; public health department; possibly obstetric care programs.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Supported by pediatric / public health advocates. Opposed? Likely minimal, but some may question resource allocations.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Increases awareness of a potentially serious newborn health risk.
Low cost relative to benefit; lessening long-term complications if detected early.
❌ Pros: (i.e. cons)
Doesn’t mandate screening — so some infants may still be missed.
Hospitals may need resources/training to implement new information protocols.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Starting September 2025, Oregon requires hospitals and birth centers be given info about cytomegalovirus screening — better awareness for newborn health, though not yet universal screening.
✅ Law #4: Motion to Repeal Supermajority Vote Requirement for Local Charter Changes — HB 3687
Statute / Bill: HB 3687 (2025) (LegiScan)
Effective: September 26, 2025 for many laws in that chapter. (LegiScan)
📝 What it does
Prohibits (removes) supermajority vote requirements for any question related to a county or city charter. That means local governments can make charter amendments or decisions without needing more than a simple majority. (LegiScan)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Very minimal direct cost; some administrative updates for election/charter offices.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Local governments, citizens pushing for charter changes; reduces barriers for reforms.
Affects: Those who preferred stronger thresholds (supermajority) for consensus; may make charter amendments easier (for better or worse).
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Supported by government reform / local control advocates. Opposition likely from those who believe supermajority ensures protection of minority views or stability.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Makes it easier for local change; more responsiveness to voters.
Simplifies governance; lower hurdle for change.
❌ Cons:
Reduces protections that supermajority vote thresholds gave to minority or dissenting groups.
Possible instability if frequent charter changes are made with narrow majorities.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
HB 3687 (effective late Sept 2025) removes supermajority vote requirements for county/city charter matters in Oregon — enabling local governments and citizens to make charter changes with simple majorities, for better responsiveness but fewer safeguards for minority opposition.