Relating to court processes; and declaring an emergency.
SB 98 makes a broad set of mostly procedural changes to Oregon court administration and family-law practice. A major theme is modernizing court operations: it expands the Chief Justice’s authority over electronic filing, electronic signatures, electronic service, remote appearances, electronic citations, public access to court records, and emergency-related extensions of deadlines. It also removes the requirement for bound printed volumes of court decisions and replaces references to mailed notices with sent notices in several statutes, reflecting a shift toward electronic and administrative processing.
The bill also revises appellate and mandamus procedures. It creates a process for trial courts and appellate courts to make summary determinations about whether an appealed decision is actually appealable, clarifies when trial and appellate courts retain or lose jurisdiction, and updates how appellate judgments are issued and transmitted. In mandamus cases, it standardizes party designations, service, intervention, and issuance of writs and appellate judgments. Other provisions update attorney fee authority in contempt proceedings, allow the Chief Justice to set fees for electronic court systems, and adjust rules for juror communications and eligibility forms.
Several sections affect family law and child-support enforcement. SB 98 renames “auxiliary court” as “additional court” in statutes governing support and post-judgment proceedings, expands the ability to designate another circuit court to hear modification or enforcement matters, and clarifies jurisdiction for child support judgments when multiple orders exist across counties or states. It also changes child custody and parenting-time procedures by replacing ex parte temporary custody language with a prejudgment status quo order process, while preserving ex parte relief only when a child is shown to be in immediate danger. The bill further streamlines registration and enforcement of foreign child custody determinations and foreign judgments.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial but largely technical and administrative rather than policy-driven. It amends numerous ORS sections governing appellate practice, trial-court jurisdiction, family law, jury administration, foreign judgments, tax court publication, and transportation-related reciprocal traffic agreements. It also authorizes the Department of Transportation to enter interstate traffic-offense agreements only if the Chief Justice has established court-participation procedures and the department reports the agreement to the Legislature before it takes effect. The bill takes effect immediately under an emergency clause, while most statutory amendments become operative on January 1, 2026.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and pragmatic. The bill passed both chambers with comfortable margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and broad floor support, suggesting general agreement that the changes improve court efficiency and update outdated procedures. The main points of contention appear to be limited and procedural: the scope of the Chief Justice’s administrative authority, the shift to electronic and remote court processes, the handling of ex parte custody relief, and the restructuring of jurisdiction and terminology in support and family-law statutes. The recorded opposition on floor votes indicates some legislators were cautious about parts of the package, but the bill was not broadly controversial.
SB 98 amends a wide range of Oregon statutes affecting appellate procedure, trial-court jurisdiction, mandamus practice, jury administration, family law, foreign judgment registration, tax court publication, and transportation-related reciprocal agreements. It expands and clarifies the Chief Justice’s administrative authority over electronic court processes, remote appearances, emergency deadline extensions, and court-system fees; updates how appellate judgments and appealability disputes are handled; revises child custody and child support enforcement procedures; and renames “auxiliary court” to “additional court” in support-related statutes. Most changes are operative January 1, 2026, but the act itself takes effect immediately because of the emergency clause.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, with strong committee and floor support in both chambers. The vote history shows broad bipartisan approval, especially in committee, indicating that legislators generally viewed the measure as a practical court-administration update. The presence of some floor opposition suggests a minority of lawmakers had reservations, but the dominant sentiment was favorable and focused on efficiency, modernization, and procedural clarity.
The most notable areas of potential contention are the breadth of the Chief Justice’s rulemaking and administrative powers, the move toward electronic and remote court processes, and the custody provisions allowing ex parte temporary orders only in immediate-danger situations. Some lawmakers may also have been concerned about changes to appellate jurisdiction, the treatment of multiple child support orders across jurisdictions, and the replacement of “auxiliary court” terminology with “additional court.” However, the available vote record suggests these concerns did not prevent passage and were not enough to generate sustained opposition.