Oregon Lawmakers Propose Constitutional Ban on “Secret Police”

Salem, Oregon- Bipartisan Oregon lawmakers unveiled a proposed amendment Friday aimed at banning so-called “secret police” by enshrining transparency requirements for law enforcement in the state constitution. If passed in the 2026 short legislative session, the measure would go to voters in the November 2026 general election.

Rep. Tom Andersen (D-South Salem) and Rep. Cyrus Javadi (R-Tillamook) are co-sponsoring the bill, which would prohibit masked law enforcement officers and mandate that officers display their names and badge numbers visibly. The proposal includes exemptions for SWAT teams and undercover operations, ensuring those long-standing law enforcement tactics remain viable.

Supporters’ Case

Andersen framed the measure as a defense of democratic norms. “I am introducing this legislation because Oregon must stand up to the anti-American, malignant forces of authoritarianism,” he said in a joint statement. Andersen expressed concerns about “unidentified federal ICE officers” conducting violent, warrantless arrests, warning that “secret police have no place in a free and democratic society.” He added, “Our state’s Constitution protects essential freedoms and the current crisis demands it must now also prohibit the activities of Secret Police.” Andersen asserted, “Representative Javadi and I proudly stand together today on a bipartisan basis to put this question in the hands of Oregon voters.”

Javadi emphasized accountability and trust: “Oregonians shouldn’t have to wonder who’s knocking on their door in the middle of the night. … This amendment isn’t about partisanship, it’s about protecting the rule of law itself.” He continued, “Transparency isn’t a Republican value or a Democratic value, it’s an American value. And Oregon can lead the way by putting that principle directly into our Constitution.”

Opposition Voices Concerns

Though no official group has publicly lined up in opposition as of now, some legal experts and law enforcement advocates caution the amendment could hinder effective policing operations. They argue that visible identification requirements—especially in tense or high-risk environments—might compromise officer safety or diminish the efficacy of undercover assignments. Critics warn the measure risks imposing constraints on discretion, potentially undermining covert investigations and tactical responses.

Furthermore, civil liberties observers say that enforcement of such a constitutional amendment could provoke legal challenges centered on public safety exceptions and definitions of “masked” or “anonymous.” One constitutional law expert commented that drafting such broad language into Oregon’s constitution may invite ambiguity and litigation over what qualifies as “secret police,” especially when federal, state, and local jurisdictions intersect.

Ballot Path and Next Steps

Under Oregon law, a constitutional amendment must garner majority support in both legislative chambers before appearing on the ballot. If approved in the 2026 short session, the measure would then go before voters in November 2026. A simple majority vote in that election would ratify the amendment.