Oregon officials kill proposed ordinance seeking more regulation of public demonstrations

OREGON – A proposed ordinance that would have required organizers of public demonstrations to apply for permits was tabled “indefinitely” by city leaders Tuesday night after one Oregon resident said its passage would have been “an act of tyranny.”

Ordinance 2025-011 was introduced in April by City Manager Darin DeHaan, who told city commissioners that the new ordinance was needed to give the city necessary information and time to prepare for public demonstrations.

Its introduction followed three “Hands Off” rallies held April 5, April 19 and May 1 on two city sidewalks surrounding the historic Ogle County Courthouse in the city’s center.

Those events, organized by Indivisible of Ogle County, the local chapter of the Indivisible Project network – a grassroots organization founded in 2016 – included signs opposing President Donald Trump’s policies and executive orders during his first 100 days in office.

The rallies drew 400, 250 and 150 attendees, respectively, and were held at the intersection of Routes 64 and 2. The Oregon rally was one of several May 1 rallies that drew hundreds of thousands across the world and in the U.S.

Before the first rally, Jan Buttron of Chana met with officials from the Ogle County Sheriff’s Office, the Oregon Police Department, the Oregon Fire Protection District and the city of Oregon to make sure safety guidelines were followed.

DeHaan told the council in April that he believed a permit process was needed because Oregon was a small community with limited resources, and a demonstration permit would allow the city to prepare by having the necessary law enforcement and ambulance services available.

He said the Indivisible organizers and demonstrators were “great to work with” and that he fully supported the First Amendment and citizens’ rights to assemble, but he was concerned that future demonstrations could create safety issues if more people attended.

Buttron was one of five people who spoke out against the ordinance at the May 13 council meeting. She questioned the timing of its introduction, adding that the rallies were needed because the country was in a “constitutional crisis” due to Trump’s policy decisions and executive orders.

She said Trump has deported American citizens and other individuals without due process – some to prisons in other countries – and committed other unconstitutional acts.

On Tuesday night, Buttron said the rallies represented peaceful and nonviolent views against Trump’s actions.

“If these things weren’t happening, we would not be out there,” Buttron said. “We have followed all of the rules. We will continue to do that.”

Veronica Mathews offered each commissioner copies of case law that she said showed how such an ordinance would be “sweeping control over public expression” and a violation of First Amendment rights.

“I know this discussion is about process, not passage. But the questions you ask tonight will shape the future of this ordinance. And more than that, they will shape how the public understands your intent,” Mathews said. “That’s why I hope you’ll sit with this ordinance not just as decision-makers, but as neighbors. As people who know how this town works. How it has always worked. Because what this ordinance represents isn’t safety policy. It’s a shift in relationship between the public and the government. And the more people read it, the more that shift becomes clear.

“What concerns me most is this: When authority is broad and the rules are vague, enforcement becomes unpredictable. Even with the best of intentions, policies like this can be misused, or be perceived as being used unfairly. And once public trust starts to erode, it’s incredibly difficult to rebuild. None of this is an attack. I know how seriously many of you are taking this. I also know you’re hearing from residents who are genuinely alarmed.”

John Dickson said the proposed ordinance was on the “wrong” path.

“It sets the government above the people by requiring permission to assemble, arbitrarily defining assembly size, allowing a single entity to grant approval, stipulating ineffective appeal process, and requiring details of minutia – and it is an act of tyranny,” Dickson said.

“The sidestepped point is when two or more people meet, it is considered an assembly. Assembly is a right of liberty, a quotation familiar to all of us,” Dickson said, quoting from the Constitution. “Rights are not to be traded away nor restricted in their exercise. Asking for a permit to assemble is as despicable as asking for permission to speak, write, print or pray. The only qualification of assembly is it shall be peaceable. It is up to the people to assemble and do so peaceably.

“The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of grievances. These are the limits of governing you have sworn to uphold.”

He said the city could provide a process for requesting additional city services – if organizers of public demonstrations thought they were needed.

“If the city’s intention is to provide services, then the city needs to come up with a request for services process,” Dickson said. “You can deny or approve services. ... You cannot dictate to an assembly that is peaceable. And that belongs to the people. Government was created to preserve liberty, and tonight I request that this ordinance be properly killed by whatever process is expedient.”

After the public comment period, Mayor Ken Williams said the ordinance was intended to help the city address logistical issues for crowds that gather.

Williams said traffic control, crosswalks for pedestrians, public restroom access and other details were issues city officials thought the ordinance could help address.

“Basically, we’re trying to assist,” Williams said. “And so, what we were saying, if you look at the ordinance, is we ‘really want to help, but trust us, we won’t go too far.’”

But Williams said he was not in favor of adding more ordinances.

“I don’t think we need another ordinance,” Williams said. “I was going to go ahead and make a motion to table it. ... And that would basically kill it. I also want to open it up for discussion.”

Commissioner Tim Krug immediately made a motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely, with Melanie Cozzi making the second.

Commissioner Terry Schuster said he liked Dickson’s suggestion that the city develop a “request for services” process.

“Because that was the intent,” Schuster said. “There was no other intent behind this.”

In May, Schuster, Krug and Cozzi questioned the definition of “spontaneous” gatherings such as candlelight vigils and were concerned they could fall under the new guidelines.

Commissioner Josiah Flanagan agreed that the motion should be postponed.

The motion to table the ordinance passed unanimously 5-0.

“Yes, it’s over,” Williams said.

“I’m just glad they made the right decision,” Buttron said after the vote.

“I’m glad I don’t have to spend any more sleepless nights doing research,” Mathews said.

The next rally, titled “No Kings,” is scheduled from 3 to 5 p.m. Saturday, June 14.