Washington County commissioners table ‘rule of law’ resolution after debate over constitutional language

Washington County Board of Commissioners members debated a proposed "rule of law" resolution on March 3, clashing over language that would allow the board to "use its institutional voice to oppose unconstitutional actions" and over whether wording should reference community observations or the board’s own oath of office.

The dispute centered on three proposed amendments circulated by a subcommittee and a county-counsel revision. County counsel provided an edited version intended to insert a qualifying paragraph into the draft resolution; one amendment would read, in part, that the board "as the executive body of Washington County…has a responsibility to model adherence to the constitutions of the United States and the State of Oregon…and, in appropriate circumstances, use its institutional voice to oppose unconstitutional actions that affect county residents." Alex of county counsel read the suggested placement and described the insertion as appropriate to the draft’s structure.

Chair Catherine Harrington said she was uncomfortable with language that could imply the board itself would decide constitutionality, saying, "I'm not even a lawyer, and I don't want the casual responsibility of, as an elected chair, deciding what's unconstitutional or not." Commissioners echoed concerns that the phrase might invite the board to make legal conclusions that courts should decide. That concern drove discussion about adding qualifiers such as "inappropriate circumstances" and about returning a version that clearly aligns with legal guidance.

Commissioner Nafeez Fye, who proposed changes that would emphasize the county’s oath of office and explicitly note impacts on immigrant communities, asked the board to consider wording that ties the resolution to the oath and to recognize community-observed harms. Fye said shifting phrasing from "the board has observed" to "the community has observed" would acknowledge reports from residents without asserting a legal finding.

Other commissioners disagreed on scope. One commissioner said community observations may be real but need not be included in a standing resolution because doing so risks asserting facts a court would determine. The board also discussed whether items like federal bills and outreach to U.S. senators fit this resolution or should be handled through their regular government-relations process.

After extended discussion and multiple requests to see redlined, track-changes versions of the draft and amendments, the board agreed not to vote that day. Chair Harrington told the public the item would be pulled from the current agenda and brought back at the March 17 business meeting; she instructed that any proposed amendments be submitted in writing at least three business days before that meeting so the board could review redlined language in advance. Clerk Clark Hodges was directed to manage public-comment timing and packet materials.

The work session paused to allow the board to meet with the housing authority board of directors and to reconvene later in the afternoon. The March 17 meeting will be an evening session, at which Vice Chair Jerry Willey is expected to attend so the full complement of commissioners will be present.

What’s next: the board will receive the redlined resolution with proposed amendments, in writing, three business days before the March 17 meeting; the item will be considered at that business meeting.