OREGON STATE LAWS
LAW CONFIRMATION
Law or Bill: Senate Bill 605 (2025)
Official Title: An Act Prohibiting Reporting of Medical Debt on Consumer Credit Reports
Effective Date: January 1, 2026
Primary Sources:
Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services — Consumer protection laws effective Jan 1, 2026 (SB 605)
LAW SUMMARY
What it does: Prohibits credit reporting agencies from including medical debt on consumer credit reports in Oregon starting January 1, 2026.
Cost to taxpayers or employers: NOT SPECIFIED IN PUBLIC RECORDS.
Who it affects: Medical debtors, credit reporting agencies, lenders, and consumers statewide in Oregon.
Who sponsored or initiated it: Passed by the Oregon Legislature; signed by the Governor.
Who opposed it or concerns raised: Some lenders and financial industry representatives expressed concern about impacts on credit scoring and lending practices.
✅ PROS
• Protects consumers from credit harm due to medical debt
• Reduces barriers to credit for many Oregonians
• Aligns with consumer protection goals
❌ CONS
• Lenders may have less data for risk assessment
• Potential increased borrowing costs elsewhere
• Credit scoring models may shift
THE BALLOT BEACON TAKEAWAY:
Oregon bars medical debt from credit reports starting January 1, 2026, protecting consumer scores but changing credit risk data.
LAW CONFIRMATION
Law or Bill: House Bill 3865 (2025)
Official Title: An Act Relating to Telemarketing Practices
Effective Date: January 1, 2026
Primary Sources:
OregonLive summary of new Oregon laws effective Jan 1, 2026 (HB 3865)
LAW SUMMARY
What it does: Strengthens restrictions on telemarketing calls and texts, including updating consent requirements and limits on automated contacts.
Cost to taxpayers or employers: NOT SPECIFIED IN PUBLIC RECORDS.
Who it affects: Businesses engaging in telemarketing, consumers receiving marketing calls/texts.
Who sponsored or initiated it: Oregon Legislature; signed by the Governor.
Who opposed it or concerns raised: Some business groups raised concerns about compliance complexity and outreach limits.
✅ PROS
• Reduces unwanted calls and texts
• Enhances consumer privacy protections
• Applies statewide
❌ CONS
• Compliance costs for businesses
• May restrict legitimate outreach
• Enforcement may require oversight resources
THE BALLOT BEACON TAKEAWAY:
Oregon tightens telemarketing call and text rules starting January 1, 2026, boosting privacy while adding business compliance.
LAW CONFIRMATION
Law or Bill: Senate Bill 426 (2025)
Official Title: An Act Relating to Liability for Unpaid Wages on Construction Projects
Effective Date: January 1, 2026
Primary Sources:
OregonLive summary of new Oregon laws effective Jan 1, 2026 (SB 426)
LAW SUMMARY
What it does: Revises liability rules for unpaid wages on public construction projects, including clarifying contractor and subcontractor responsibilities.
Cost to taxpayers or employers: NOT SPECIFIED IN PUBLIC RECORDS.
Who it affects: Contractors, subcontractors, workers, and public agencies involved in construction projects statewide.
Who sponsored or initiated it: Oregon Legislature; signed by the Governor.
Who opposed it or concerns raised: Some industry stakeholders expressed concern about expanded liability and compliance costs.
✅ PROS
• Clarifies wage liability responsibilities
• Strengthens worker protections for unpaid wages
• Applies statewide
❌ CONS
• Increased compliance burden for contractors
• Potential higher costs for public projects
• Industry concerns about liability expansion
THE BALLOT BEACON TAKEAWAY:
Oregon updates construction wage liability law effective January 1, 2026, strengthening worker protections while adding contractor responsibilities.
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
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
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
Increases awareness of a potentially serious newborn health risk.
Low cost relative to benefit; lessening long-term complications if detected early.
❌ 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
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.