Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill that would create a legal definition for domestic terrorism and make the crime a felony punishable by 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine or both.
Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, introduced House Bill 2772 in January following the release of a 2022 report by the Oregon Secretary of State recommending such legislation. The bill is being considered by the Joint Ways and Means Committee.
According to the report, Oregon ranked sixth in the nation for “domestic violent extremist incidents” between 2011 and 2020, despite having the 27th largest population in the country. Oregon is also one of 16 states without legislation defining or criminalizing those incidents, the report states.
The reports cites several “significant events” in Oregon, including the 1984 bioterrorism attack by cult leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in The Dalles that poisoned 751 people, the 2016 armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by far-right extremists, violent clashes between left- and right-wing protesters in Portland in the summer of 2020 and armed far-right demonstrators who breached the Oregon State Capitol in December of that year.
Legislation defining and criminalizing such behaviors could help Oregon prevent similar incidents in the future, according to the report.
Under the bill, a person would commit the crime of first-degree domestic terrorism if they introduced a toxic substance into widespread contact with human beings or intentionally destroyed or substantially damaged critical infrastructure with the intent to cause widespread sickness, injury, death or disruption of services provided by that infrastructure. At least 50 people must be impacted for the crime to be considered domestic terrorism.
The bill provides more than a dozen examples of critical infrastructure, including bridges, roads, dams, airports, pipelines, fiber optic cable networks, data centers, electric substations and gas, electric or water utility systems.
For a second-degree charge, a person must attempt to destroy or substantially damage critical infrastructure, or possess a toxic substance or destructive device with the intent of destroying or damaging the infrastructure.
Opponents of the bill – including environmental activist groups, civil defense lawyers and the ACLU of Oregon – say it covers property crimes that are already illegal under state law. A person suspected of damaging or destroying property including public utilities, railroads or public transportation facilities can already be charged with first-degree criminal mischief, for example.
Opponents are also concerned law enforcement could abuse the potential legislation by targeting protesters and communities that are over-policed, such as Black, Indigenous and other Oregonians of color, said Nick Caleb, a climate energy attorney for Breach Collective, an Oregon climate justice organization.
Caleb said that merely being accused of domestic terrorism – regardless of a conviction – is enough to stigmatize a person, and fear of that label could convince people to avoid participating in common forms of protest, including blocking traffic on major roadways or bridges.
“Legislators are understandably and justifiably careful of this kind of stuff, and at Breach Collective we’re also fearful of such things – we see it and we experience it and these are real problems,” he said. “But the bill is capable of being abused.”
Rep. Farrah Chaichi, D-Tigard, was the lone member of the House Committee on Judiciary to vote against sending the bill to the Joint Ways and Means Committee on Monday, saying the bill was “too broad” and ran the risk of being misused.
Chaichi cited a December 2021 lawsuit filed by activists against the Oregon Department of Justice claiming the Oregon TITAN Fusion Center – a state intelligence agency – illegally surveilled them while they peacefully protested the $10 billion Jordan Cove natural gas pipeline in Southern Oregon.
“I am also concerned at labeling things that are already illegal domestic terrorism — terrorism is shorthand to vilify people,” Chaichi said Monday during the House Judiciary Committee meeting. “Having that kind of moniker attached to the crime makes it easier to dehumanize people who are going to be accused of this crime, meaning that they don’t have the same rights and we shouldn’t consider them the same as other defendants.”
Evans said the bill’s language focuses on “purposeful efforts to cause catastrophic harm” to infrastructure – not on accidental or incidental damage that may happen during a protest, such as a broken fence or a scuffed car. And while there are crimes like criminal mischief on the books, Evans said domestic terrorism belongs in its own “distinct class.”
“I’m not trying to prevent freedom of expression – I’m trying to make sure that people who have a very warped sense of the world are clear that blowing up a bridge, an electrical station or poisoning a reservoir is not a legitimate protest but criminal behavior,” Evans said. “If you think blowing up a bridge or an electrical grid is a legitimate protest, then we probably have a larger problem.”
Infrastructure has been damaged in recent months. Electrical grids in Oregon and Washington were attacked six times – at least twice with guns – between November and December 2022, causing some residents in both states to lose power, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.
Evans said the consequences of those attacks can be deadly, such as cutting off power to someone on dialysis or life support at a hospital. He said the negative impacts also hit historically disadvantaged communities the hardest, including people who lack the “economic resiliency” to survive multiple days without electricity or can’t make their commute to work due to a damaged bridge.
The bill does not mention mass shootings, which have terrorized communities and cities across the United States in recent years. Out of interest in getting the bill passed, Evans said he intentionally focused on infrastructure and avoided including mass shootings as it might “muddy the waters.” But he added that mass shootings remain a category for policy development.
Evans is also chief sponsor of House Bill 2005, a gun control bill that would make it a crime to manufacture, sell or possess a gun without a serial number, prohibit people under 21 from possessing guns except for certain hunting rifles and allow cities or counties to bar people from carrying guns in public buildings or on adjacent grounds.
“Under what I thought could be passed in a reasonable, bipartisan way, we tried to keep ideology out of it – tried to keep it simple and tied to spaces and things,” he said. “We’re trying to keep the conversations separate and trying to keep focusing on critical infrastructure so it wasn’t too big of a bite at one time.”
— Catalina Gaitán, cgaitan@oregonian.com, @catalingaitan_
Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today at OregonLive.com/subscribe.
