Last week, we sent letters to 61 Oregon cities and towns as part of a national effort coordinated by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, urging officials to repeal unconstitutional and misguided bans on panhandling in their jurisdictions. 

The letters detailed how the existing ordinances violate free speech protections in the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions, explained the moral and practical problems with criminalizing poverty, and suggested compassionate alternatives to these laws. Local leaders of jurisdictions with anti-panhandling laws from across the state – from cities as large as Medford and Springfield to towns as small as Adams and Chiloquin – are now on notice that they are violating the the rights of homeless Oregonians in their communities. 

We asked these 61 jurisdictions to immediately stop enforcing anti-panhandling ordinances, to quickly take these ordinances off their books, to dismiss all pending prosecutions or citations under the ordinances, and to develop new approaches that will lead to better outcomes for all of their community members regardless of housing status. 

Since the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert established heightened protections for free speech, every case brought against pnhandling ordinances has resulted in finding the ordinances unconstitutional. That's 25 cases to date. The vast majority of the anti-panhandling laws we've identified in Oregon almost certainly violate the right to free speech prtoected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And in state court, for example, the ACLU of Oregon successfully challenged the City of Medford's ordinance restricting the solicitation of donations. A circuit court judge agreed with us, striking the law down. 

Anti-panhandling laws have real consequences on Oregonians who need help, not handcuffs. 

People who are experiencing poverty are forced to ask for help because they are trying to survive. Those in our communities who wish to offer a helping hand should be able to answer their call with kindness. Imposing legal restrictions on this simple act of humanity harms our communities and the already far-too-fragile safety net for people living in need. 

Anti-panhandling ordinances do not solve Oregon's housing crisis or cure poverty or any of the myriad other challenges that lead people into homelessness. Instead, criminalizing homelessness and poverty exacerbates the underlying causes leading to homelessness and poverty. For example, a criminal record makes it even harder for people to obtain employment, housing, and public benefits, which often propels vulnerable people into a downward cycle of criminality.

Anti-panhandling laws are also expensive to enforce and reduce the already limited resources that actually work to keep our community safe. And, of course, when governments adopt a model of criminalizing a constitutionally-protected activity, they expose their city to lawsuits that taxpayers will be on the hook for when they ultimately lose. 

Cities can instead implement alternatives that aren't intended to punish the needy. Affordable and subsidized housing with wrap-around services is a far more effective legal and fiscal strategy, but it's also a more ethical and moral option. This and other alternatives can be found in "Housing Not Handcuffs: Ending the Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities" by the National Law Center for Homelessness & Poverty.

Linked below is the letter we sent to the mayor, city council members, and the city attorney of Albany, Oregon. It's similar to the letters we sent to the leaders of other cities and towns. Some of these jurisdictions may claim they aren't actively enforcing their anti-panhandling laws, but that's not enough: Take these laws down before a court does it for you. 

The following Oregon cities and towns received a letter from us after we identified problematic anti-panhandling laws: Adams, Albany, Ashland, Bandon, Banks, Bay City, Brookings, Carlton, Cave Junction, Central Point, Chiloquin, Columbia City, Coos Bay, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Culver, Dallas, Enterprise, Garibaldi, Gold Beach, Grants Pass, Happy Valley, Harrisburg, Hubbard, Jacksonville, Jefferson, Klamath Falls, Lafayette, Lake Oswego, Lebanon, Lincoln City, Malin, Manzanita, Medford, Mill City, Milton-Freewater, Newberg, North Bend, Nyssa, Pendleton, Philomath, Phoenix, Pilot Rock, Prineville, Rainer, Rogue River, Roseburg, Seaside, Sheridan, Silverton, Springfield, Stayton, Sutherlin, Umatilla (city), Union (city), Waldport, Warrenton, Willamina.

The Oregon District Attorneys’ Association (ODAA) recently had their summer conference, but not everyone was happy with the speakers.

The association flew in the chief prosecuting attorney from St. Louis County, Missouri, Bob McCulloch. McCulloch had just made news because he lost his re-election bid in what was the hottest race in the St. Louis local elections. McCulloch lost badly despite 28 years in office and a fundraising edge. The race was centered around the public’s dissatisfaction with a deep history of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.

McCulloch was brought to Oregon to not only provide a presentation but to also serve as the keynote speaker during the conference dinner. Apparently, several conference participants refused to attend the dinner based on what was characterized by Multnomah County District Attorney Rod Underhill as “offensive and unprofessional” remarks by McCulloch in an earlier presentation. And Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel characterized the presentation as racially insensitive, stereotyping Black men as criminals.

For people familiar with McCulloch’s track record, none of this is surprising.

McCulloch entered the national spotlight when he refused to prosecute the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed, African American 18-year-old. The incident helped spur a national movement to address police misconduct and racism in the justice system. Several months after Brown’s killing, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released a scathing report from their investigation of Ferguson, Missouri’s criminal justice system. The DOJ found rampant racial discrimination and police abuse unchecked by McCulloch, the county’s chief prosecutor, along with a range of practices that were entirely focused on revenue generation rather than justice.

McCulloch’s lack of interest in holding police accountable and addressing racial discrimination in the system was a core theme in the election campaign he just lost. In St. Louis County, African Americans are only 24% of the county population but 67% of the jail population. You can’t be the top prosecutor in a county for almost 30 years without holding a tremendous amount of responsibility for such terrible disparities. A city councilman from Ferguson, named Wesley Bell, crushed McCulloch on Election Day. Bell ran on a reform agenda that was about racial justice, police accountability, transparency, and focusing on treatment and diversion.

Given McCulloch’s history, what does his keynote invitation say about the Oregon District Attorneys Association? This is just one of the many questions we should be asking.

What did the ODAA hope to learn from disgraced District Attorney McCulloch? Do they see St. Louis County’s deeply discriminatory justice system as a model they want to replicate? How did the people at the conference feel when McCulloch showed a picture of young Black men and allegedly referred to them as “dirty bastards?” Did it make participants feel uncomfortable when McCulloch also allegedly referred to the ACLU and other activists as the “5^th dimension of hell”? Why bring a guest speaker who has a long legacy of racially discriminatory policies and practices?

I am encouraged a little that at least two DAs have publicly expressed discomfort and disappointment with McCulloch’s language and ideas. But when only two out of Oregon’s 36 elected district attorneys are willing to publicly disavow McCulloch’s presence and behavior, it’s hard to have much confidence in the ODAA. The situation is only made worse when the association president, Matt Shirtcliff from Baker County, doesn’t understand why anyone was offended by McCulloch’s presence and ideas. Neither ignorance or intentional denial is acceptable for such a law enforcement “leader.”

The leadership of ODAA owe Oregonians an explanation.

The ACLU of Oregon often describes the District Attorneys Association in Oregon as our state’s biggest roadblock to criminal justice reform, particularly when trying to address issues of racial disparity, youth justice, and police accountability. Although we are quick to point out that some district attorneys are supporting important reforms in their individual counties, their association has a long history of lobbying to oppose and water down legislative efforts to modernize our justice system and increase fairness.

The ACLU has taken a lot of heat and pushback from district attorneys in characterizing their collective lobbying efforts as regressive. This is just another defining moment that reinforces our beliefs that the ODAA doesn’t come close to sharing Oregonians’ values or vision for how to improve the state’s justice system.

Here is one thing Oregon DAs could take away from St. Louis. Missouri is known as the “Show Me State.” It is time Oregon’s district attorneys show us their values by speaking out and choosing new leadership. Or will they continue to let the hardliners who are comfortable with bigotry and outdated thinking represent them?

This appears to be a moment when Oregon’s district attorneys need a gut check.