House Bill 3530 would prohibit public bodies in Oregon from using the term “squaw” in the names of public property or highways. If a public body changes a name containing that term, the bill directs it to consider a replacement name drawn from the language of an Indian tribe. The measure is framed as a naming and renaming directive rather than a broader land-use or transportation policy change.
The bill amends ORS 271.600, which governs naming of public property and highways, by adding a specific prohibition on the use of the term and setting out limited exceptions. The exceptions would allow the term only if federal law requires it or if the highway or property is a geographic feature named by a federal agency using that term. In practice, the bill would require affected state and local public bodies to review and potentially rename highways and other public properties that currently include the term.
Impact
HB 3530 would change Oregon law by adding a new restriction to ORS 271.600 and requiring public bodies to remove the term “squaw” from highway and public property names, subject to narrow federal-law and federal-naming exceptions. The bill would affect state agencies, local governments, and other public bodies responsible for naming or renaming public assets, and could require updates to maps, signage, records, and administrative references where affected names appear.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be presented in a straightforward, corrective manner with an emphasis on eliminating a term widely regarded as offensive. The sponsorship pattern suggests support from multiple legislators across chambers, but no formal vote history or hearing record is available here to show opposition or amendments. Overall, the available context indicates a generally favorable or noncontroversial framing, though the issue itself is culturally sensitive.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the use of the term “squaw” itself and whether the state should mandate renaming of existing highways and public properties that contain it. Any practical disputes would center on implementation burdens for public bodies, the scope of the prohibition, and the exceptions for federal law or federally named geographic features. The bill also signals a preference for replacement names in an Indian tribe’s language, which could raise questions about consultation, tribal involvement, and naming authority.