As leaders in various civil rights groups around Oregon got wind of the Nov. 5 presidential election results, most said they were saddened but not surprised.
OK, one cursed.
But for Amy Handler, it felt like nothing was about to change. That’s because, as executive director of Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon, she had already been living with the long-lasting effects of President Trump’s first term.
“When Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away in 2020, that was actually the moment that we started preparing for Roe to fall. We knew Trump was going to get a third appointee on the Supreme Court,” Handler said, referring to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that enshrined bodily autonomy as a privacy right nationally for more than 50 years.
Planned Parenthood has been engaging in legal and political battles ever since.
The other civil rights leaders interviewed — representing efforts to protect traditional blue values, such as equality for the LGBTQ+ community, economic justice and voting rights — acknowledged they had been formulating contingency plans during the campaign for just such a result.
But now in this interregnum, the regime-changing, tea leaf-reading period between Nov. 6 and Jan. 20, they admittedly face many unknowns:
- Which of Trump’s campaign promises will be kept?
- How seriously should one take his rhetoric on social media postings?
- How many of Project 2025’s far-right goals will be incorporated into his administration’s policies?
- What do his nominees for various government posts foretell about his priorities?
And maybe the scariest of all to those who defend Oregon’s most vulnerable, who might be targeted? And who’s first?
Oregon’s existing protections
For a state that started out with racial discrimination baked into its first constitution by excluding Blacks from land ownership and the ability to enter into contracts, Oregon has enacted many civil rights protections since.
Abortion: In 1969 Oregon was one of the first 11 states in the nation to legalize abortion, even before Roe was decided. By 1983, Oregon lawmakers removed all pre- abortion statutes from the state constitution and required any new restrictions to be proposed as constitutional amendments.
Then in 2017 the Reproductive Health Equity Act codified abortion access into state law and ensured all low-income residents, regardless of their citizenship status, can access care.
In 2023 the Oregon Legislature expanded upon RHEA by protecting patients, clinicians, health center staff, volunteers and companions from prosecution, even when the patient is coming to Oregon from a state with laws restricting access to care.
LGBTQ+: In the area of LGBTQ+ rights, despite the passage of a 2004 initiative defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Oregon Family Fairness Act gave same-gender couples the right to register domestic partnerships in 2007.
By 2014 a federal judge had ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional 1½ years after the Supreme Court ruled a similar federal ban unconstitutional. LGBTQ+ couples have been tying the knot ever since.
Since 1971, children as young as 15 have been able to seek medical care without parental consent and 14 for mental health service. This has included gender-affirming care.
The state began to cover gender-affirming care in 2024 as part of the Oregon Health Plan, Oregon's Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program.
Immigration: Oregon was also the first to declare itself a sanctuary state, meaning local and state officials would not cooperate with federal officials trying to enforce immigration laws. A companion law in 2021 further defined permissible enforcement methods.
Voting: Oregon was first in the country to transition to vote-by-mail only. While other states followed, notably nearby Western states Washington, California and Nevada, it’s a tradition a quarter-century in the making in the Beaver State.
And the state continues to vote blue, buoyed by densely populated metropolitan areas in Portland, Salem and Eugene.
Although a vocal red-values contingent exists, growing louder as one heads east toward rural Oregon, voters once again in November sent a super-majority of Democrats to the statehouse in Salem.
Meanwhile locally, a newish Congressional district, the 5th which includes Linn County and was first seated by a Republican, flipped Democratic in November.
And though no one can say for sure if it’s a first, all six Albany city councilors and the mayor are Democrats.
Then there’s the fact that Oregon hasn't elected a Republican governor since Vic Atiyeh won reelection in 1982.
Trump’s levers
Even with those protections and Democratic politicians in place, Trump’s administration has several levers at its disposal to effect change in blue states, according to Paul Diller, a law professor at Willamette University who specializes in local and state laws.
As head of the executive branch, Trump will have the ability to issue executive orders as he sees fit. For example, during his first term a week after inauguration, Trump restricted immigrant entry into the United States, banning those from certain countries, predominantly Muslim.
With numerous alphabet-soup-named agencies organized under the executive branch’s 15 departments, Trump can also influence policy by encouraging the agencies to create new rules by reinterpreting laws already passed by Congress, Diller said.
Trump also can use the agencies to withhold some funding to blue states, though Congress controls most of the purse strings, Diller added.
With both houses in Republican control, albeit by fairly slim margins, Trump could use his influence in Congress to impact funding even more and create new laws, Diller said.
He also enjoys a 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed justices on the U.S. Supreme Court — three of whom he hand-picked during his first term. They have already decided many cases, including ones brought by Trump himself, favorable to the president-elect and his goals.
When judicial interpretations of state and federal constitutions conflict, the U.S. Constitution ensures federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Basically, the feds win, Diller said.
Finally, Trump has the military at his disposal, though it is rarely dispatched on domestic soil. He may even take efforts to nationalize states’ own National Guards under certain circumstances, Diller said.
“My guess is you will see the Trump administration try to use executive orders and administrative regulations as their primary methods of changing policy in certain areas that might be sensitive to blue states like Oregon,” Diller said
“If they want to try to withhold funding, they would probably need Congress' authority, and Congress is going to be very divided. But they still have some executive discretion when it comes to funding that ties in with their administrative authority,” he said.
That happened during his first term, Diller said, when Trump threatened to withhold federal grants from local police departments in sanctuary states, like Oregon. The city of San Francisco challenged the decision and won in lower court, but the matter never made it to a Supreme Court hearing after being dismissed once President Biden took office.
So what, then, can we expect? Here’s what some experts say.
Abortion access
The Supreme Court gave states the ability to limit abortion access when it decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022. But that doesn’t mean a government, controlled by Republicans in all three branches, doesn’t have tools that could be used to influence what happens in blue states.
While on the campaign trail, both Trump and running mate J.D. Vance denied they would seek a nationwide ban. But they don’t necessarily have to. An existing obscenity law on the books since 1873, called the Comstock Act, could be interpreted to prevent the distribution of abortion medications and surgical tools, many legal analysts have opined.
“There's so much we don't know about how or if the Comstock Act will be leveraged against us,” said Planned Parenthood's Handler, who acknowledges she's been watching all that “they're putting out there."
That includes Project 2025, the road map to move the country hard to the right, penned by Trump associates, though candidate Trump first called the plans “ridiculous and abysmal.” He since has embraced them.
She’s taking it seriously.
Handler trusts they’re going to try to make good on some of those promises, systematically chipping away at “our work and our access and, really, people's fundamental right to bodily autonomy,”
A Trump-controlled Federal Drug Administration could pull the abortion medications from the market.
Defensively, Gov. Tina Kotek announced on Nov. 18 that Oregon was stockpiling enough of the mifepristone to cover needs through 2028.
But what happens to this supply’s availability should Trump' s FDA revoke approval of mifepristone is unknown, according to Samantha West, statewide communications manager for Planned Parenthood.
The organization “has been proactively preparing in case the outcome in the mifepristone case is unfavorable, and we have protocols ready to use to move to a misoprostol-only regimen for our patients, as well as having procedural abortions available,” West said by email.
In anticipating a possible Trump win, Handler said Planned Parenthood restructured its advocacy efforts to create even stronger “partnerships” in the state Legislature and other like-minded organizations.
“Our new advocacy arm was launched almost two months ago now, which is Planned Parenthood Action Oregon. That group will really help us ensure that we continue to be the most protective state in the country for abortion access. They'll build on a lot of the historic wins that we've had in Oregon over the last 20 years and just continue to strengthen and protect us here in Oregon.
“That's a big, big part of our game plan.”
LGBTQ+ rights
“Kamala Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you.”
It was one of the final sentiments expressed by the Trump campaign as election season wound down and football season ramped up, the commercials peppering televised sporting events.
“We saw, I saw anti-trans ads on the TV, and so it does feel like it's a real attempt to push back progress — and also kind of isolate and scapegoat the LGBTQ community, for sure,” said Blair Stenvick, communications manager for Basic Rights Oregon, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights.
While there may be some fear in the community, Stenvick said Oregon is still one of the safest states for the LGBTQ+ community. If anything, the Trump win was a catalyst to check in with each other, to build community and support.
“This is a hard time, but we're still gonna find joy,” he said.
Stenvick is putting faith not only in the current laws but also in advocates’ willingness to fight against a pendulum swing.
“Oregon has obviously a very pro-equality majority in our government, and we have protections. And I I think there's a lot there that would protect us from federal actions.
"For example, if the administration was to overturn the affirming LGBTQ guidance for students at the federal level, we still have very, very strong guidance in Oregon.”
If newly crafted federal rules conflict with Oregon values, Stenvick expects legal challenges.
“Oregon would be among those states pushing back, filing lawsuits, pushing for injunctions and pushing for them to be overturned if they're unconstitutional,” he said.
One potential vulnerability is in the language of 2004’s Measure 36, the one that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It’s still part of the Oregon Constitution.
If the Supreme Court were to send the issue back to the states, “we have this very problematic language,” Sandy Chung, executive director of ACLU Oregon, said.
That’s on the to-do list at Basic Rights Oregon.
Stenvick hopes the general public understands that attacking LGBTQ+ rights is just the beginning for an administration with nominees and a guiding document in Project 2025 that envision a different America.
“It's not about trans-youth health care. It's not just about trans people. It's not just about LGBTQ+ people. It's about really going back to this place of extreme gender stereotypes for everyone in a way that everyone would suffer,” Stenvick said.
Economic justice
Tax law may not be the first thing that comes to mind when pondering civil rights. But how taxes are levied and credits are awarded are very much front and center for the people at the Oregon Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan but clearly progressive think tank that lobbies for fairness in economic policies.
That Trump is signaling loudly his support for the rich, and especially the uber rich, is cause for concern, center Executive Director Alejandro Queral said. But even if and when the federal government makes moves, Oregon can make countermoves, Queral said.
“We anticipate a lot of changes potentially coming our way and having to play defense, so to speak, trying to make changes at the state level that prevent those changes at the federal level from having a direct impact,” he said.
Most of that work is done in Salem, not the courts.
“Playing defense on an advocacy level means going to the Legislature, (trying) to both educate legislators and collectively come up with good solutions for Oregon that minimize or mitigate the damage that the federal government could be doing to our economy (and) particularly to the most vulnerable among us,” Queral said.
The Trump tax cuts of 2017 for the rich were supposed to expire at the end of 2025, and Queral’s group anticipates the intention is to make those tax cuts permanent.
Even more, an analysis of Trump’s future tax plans by the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, shows some people — from the poorest to those making as much as $360,000 a year — paying hundreds of dollars more each year in taxes under the plan. At the same time, those making more will save thousands, as much as $36,320 annually for those earning $914,900 or more.
The set-up was so stark, the organization, which is utilized by both sides of the political aisle, titled its news release: “Like Robin Hood in reverse.”
The many billionaires pitching in to help pay for the Trump inauguration and the appointment of billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to an advisory council searching ways to cut federal spending have many in the punditry world using the “O” word: oligarchy.
“I don't know if there's a red bright line that says, if you cross this line, you're in the world of oligarchy. I don't know where that line is,” Queral said. “I look at the preponderance of facts that, to me, show who he is listening to are people who haven’t experienced the harsh realities of what it's like to be a low-income worker in the United States of America in 2025. And so whether oligarchy or not oligarchy, does it matter?
“The question is, are the policies directly benefiting those that are in the same category as these advisers, people with extraordinary amounts of wealth?”
Other areas of concern, while not normally the center’s primary focus, include changes to Medicaid, food stamps and nutrition services, even education and immigration, Queral said.
All of this adds up to more work lobbying Oregon legislators. Recent bipartisan wins, such as the Oregon Kids Credit bill that passed in 2023 which provides families a $1,000 tax credit per child, proves it can be done, he said. That win came with Republicans who have already demonstrated a willingness to walk out in the middle of legislative sessions, even if it threatens their political careers.
The unanswered question is, will the divide in-state between blue and red widen?
“I think that what we're going to have is a series of actions that are going to slowly undermine that fabric and that connectivity,” Queral said. “And I think that you're starting to smell it in the way some legislators and candidates have talked about wanting to approach Oregon with a more sort of MAGA-type policies.
“And so, I think we need to guard against that.”
Vote-by-mail in danger?
Ever since the coronavirus pandemic forced many states into voting-by-mail during an election Trump lost amid false accusations of voter fraud, the call to change voting laws has intensified, both nationally and in Oregon.
Legally, the state has clear authority to run its state and local elections as it sees fit, according to UCLA law professor and elections expert Rick Hasen, author of “Election Meltdown,” a book about the 2020 election.
But so does the federal government, at least in terms of how federal elections are conducted.
So far, Congress has not moved to ban vote-by-mail, and Hasen doesn’t feel strongly that it will. But if it does, Oregon would have two methods of voting in the very same election: vote-by-mail for state and local contests, polling places for federal elections.
Arizona is currently facing such a dilemma, Hasen said, though not with vote-by-mail. While the federal government doesn’t require proof of citizenship at the point of voter registration, since 2022, Arizona does.
“In Arizona, if you try to register to vote using a form that the state of Arizona has created, and you don't provide documentary proof of citizenship, you can't vote in any election, and if you use a federal form, you can vote without providing the documentary proof of citizenship. You can vote in federal elections, but not state elections. So, it is possible to have different sets of rules for state and federal elections,” Hasan said.
If Project 2025’s objectives are carried out, the Trump administration may move enforcement of voting laws from the Department of Justice’s civil division, where lawyers protect people’s access to vote, to the criminal division that would prosecute election-related crimes.
Project 2025 calls for possible prosecution of state and local election officials. The far-reaching document also would require state and local governments that receive money from the Department of Homeland Security to allow the federal government to access their Department of Motor Vehicles and voter registration databases, according to an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Finally it also seeks to defund the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which safeguards elections.
“Republicans have made a lot of noise about voter fraud, voter confidence, election integrity, those kinds of issues,” Hasan said. “And there's talk about passing laws that would require proof of citizenship for anyone to be registered to vote, and maybe cutting back on early voting opportunities."
On the other hand, it's not clear what will happen because of the slim majority Republicans enjoy in the House, Hasan said
“And to the extent that the Senate is going to continue to use the filibuster, it would be very hard to see a restrictive voting law get through the Senate,” he added.
But at least with a potential attack on vote-by-mail, the feds may not have to do anything. That’s because a homegrown push is underway to get a measure on a statewide ballot to do away with vote-by-mail.
It calls for: in-person voting, except in cases of justified absentees; a ban on automatic voter registration; a ban on receiving ballots post-Election Day; and, like Arizona, a requirement of identification with proof of citizenship to guarantee voting eligibility.
The ENDVBM (End Vote-by-Mail) political action committee has been active on Twitter, where backers have blamed the current system for fraudulently turning a red state blue.
The ACLU’s Chung doesn’t believe it has a chance: “Who doesn't like it? Do you actually know anyone personally who doesn't like mail-in voting?” she asked incredulously.
It also doesn’t make sense, she said.
“There is no evidence of any type of significant, concerning or widespread voter fraud in Oregon,” Chung said. Instead, “what the data does show us is we have very high levels of voting compared to many other states, and also voting that's really accessible, and not just accessible for blue areas."
In fact, voters in the blue metropolitan areas would have a much easier time getting to polls, she said.
"If we got rid of this, who would actually be impacted are folks in the rural areas of the state, elderly voters, disabled voters,” Chung said.
Everything, everywhere all at once
Beyond worrying about which will become priorities, Oregon Center for Public Policy’s Queral envisions an onslaught, designed to confuse and confound.
“There's reason to be very concerned, but it's hard to also be very concrete at this point,” he said about the uncertainty. Beyond the obvious, Queral is concerned that some changes will fly “under the radar,” as people’s attention is drawn elsewhere.
Stenvick calls it an over-all “weakening (of) the defenses against all civil rights in general.” That’s why disparate groups concerned about a panoply of possible attacks from the Trump administration are coming together.
“I don't think it's about who's up first. It's about what can we be doing to be as prepared and solid and connected as possible,” he said.
Of course, not all of this change, if it manifests at all, will happen overnight.
“I think sometimes what we've seen from this incoming administration before is words not matching actions in a way that seems almost intended more to keep us in a state of panic,” Stenvick said. “So it's hard to say for certain what will or won't happen after Inauguration Day.”
Working together
Still, in hoping for the best but planning for the worst, Planned Parenthood, Basic Rights Oregon and the ACLU are teaming up to put an initiative before Oregon voters that would enshrine a number of blue values.
Calling it “Equal Rights for All,” the measure clarifies existing protections against sex discrimination in Oregon’s Constitution as they apply to sexual orientation, gender identity, marriage and the ability to become pregnant —and related health care decisions, such as contraception, in vitro fertilization, abortion and gender-affirming care.
It would also remove from the Oregon Constitution what civil rights activists consider is the problematic language casting marriage in traditional terms.
Chung sees all those civil rights stemming from the legal definition of sex and its related protections, as currently supported — for the time being at least — by federal laws and court cases.
New York just passed a similar constitutional amendment with nearly 63% support. It’s designed to be in place if the Supreme Court returns these issues to the states, as it did with abortion, Stenvick said.
“It will also protect Oregonians for generations to come,” he predicted.
The organizations’ goal is to get the measure before voters in November 2026. That's also the timeframe for those hoping to end vote-by-mail in Oregon.
If both make the ballot, nearly two years into Trump’s second term, it may very well reveal how strong the blue bubble really is.
Read the rest of this seven-part series:
Penny Rosenberg is regional editor of three Lee Enterprises news publications in the Pacific Northwest. She earned a Master of Legal Studies from UCLA School of Law. She can be reached at Penny.Rosenberg@lee.net and 541-812-6111.