Relating to offensive names; and declaring an emergency.
HB 3532 directs the executive secretary of the Oregon Geographic Names Board to identify Oregon geographic features with offensive names and begin a process to rename them. The bill defines “offensive” as insulting and derogatory to any of Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes or to any race, nationality, or ethnicity. It applies to geographic features such as mountains, buttes, gulches, rivers, and creeks, and requires the board to compile a list of affected features and develop new names through a public process.
The bill requires consultation with the Oregon Geographic Names Board, the nine federally recognized tribes, county and municipal leaders, state representatives, local landowners, and other interested parties. It also requires the executive secretary to distribute the list and instructions for proposing names to legislators, tribes, county governing bodies, and county historical societies, and to submit renaming proposals to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names within three years of the act’s effective date. The measure includes reporting deadlines in 2026 and a repeal date of January 2, 2029, and it takes effect immediately under an emergency clause.
HB 3532 creates a temporary statutory mandate for the Oregon Geographic Names Board’s executive secretary to inventory and pursue replacement names for offensive geographic names in Oregon. It does not itself rename any feature, but it establishes a state-led process that could affect official geographic naming records, local place names, and future submissions to the federal U.S. Board on Geographic Names. The bill also expands formal consultation and notice obligations to tribes, local governments, landowners, legislators, and historical societies, thereby affecting how naming decisions are developed and reviewed.
The bill appears to have broad overall support, reflected in strong floor votes in both chambers and unanimous or near-unanimous committee approval at later stages. The emergency clause and expedited deadlines suggest lawmakers viewed the issue as timely and important. At the same time, the committee votes show some opposition or hesitation early in the process, indicating that while the measure was generally favored, it was not entirely uncontested.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope and process of identifying “offensive” names and who should have input into renaming decisions. Potential concerns include the impact on local communities and landowners, the role of state versus federal naming authority, and whether the bill’s definition of offensive names is sufficiently clear. The close 4-3 committee vote on the amended version suggests some disagreement over the amended approach, even though the final floor votes were much more favorable.