A federal civil-rights lawsuit originating with the unsuccessful 2025 campaign to recall Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek will proceed with an additional constitutional claim after a federal judge authorized chief petitioner William “Bill” Minnix to pursue allegations that Oregon’s administration of the recall process denied him procedural due process.
U.S. District Judge Amy M. Baggio granted part of Minnix’s request to file a third amended complaint Sept. 14 in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Her ruling permits Minnix to add a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to litigation that already includes his First Amendment challenge involving political petitioning. Baggio denied his request to add an Equal Protection claim and did not authorize the proposed individual-capacity allegations against Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read.
The ruling expands the constitutional questions that can be litigated in Minnix v. Read, Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-AB, but it does not establish that Read or the state violated Minnix’s rights. Those allegations remain contested, and no determination of liability has been made.
Minnix’s lawsuit developed during the final days of a statewide recall campaign that began in late July 2025. Organizers were given a 90-day circulation period to collect enough valid signatures to force a recall election. Minnix filed his original federal civil-rights complaint Oct. 22, 2025, while petitions were still circulating and five days before the Oct. 27 deadline. The campaign ultimately ended without enough signatures to qualify for an election.
The federal case concerns instructions contained in official materials used during that signature-gathering effort. Minnix alleges the materials provided misleading information concerning where Oregon voters were permitted to sign the petition. According to his complaint, he contacted the Secretary of State’s Elections Division about the disputed instruction before the circulation period expired and sought corrective action while organizers still had an opportunity to gather signatures.
Minnix contends that the state did not provide a timely procedure capable of resolving the alleged problem before the statutory deadline. His amended allegations maintain that the delay cost the campaign petitioning opportunities and caused other injuries connected to the recall effort. The Secretary of State disputes both his factual allegations and his constitutional claims.
The Sept. 14 order gives Minnix an opportunity to litigate whether the procedures available under those circumstances satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment. His First Amendment claim, meanwhile, concerns the political petitioning activity involved in the recall process. Together, the claims place the administration of Oregon’s state-created recall system before the federal court, including the use of official forms and instructions during a circulation period governed by a fixed deadline.
“This case has always been about more than one recall petition,” Minnix said. “It is about whether Oregon citizens who use a state-created recall process are entitled to meaningful and constitutionally adequate procedures when the State controls the official forms and instructions used in that process.”
Minnix prepared his third amended complaint Sept. 15 in accordance with Baggio’s order. The new pleading retains his First Amendment claim and adds the procedural due-process allegations authorized by the court. It also describes his communications with election officials and his efforts to obtain action on the disputed instruction before the petition period closed.
The chronology carries particular weight in Minnix’s allegations because the recall campaign could collect signatures only during its 90-day statutory window. His complaint maintains that an alleged defect identified during active circulation required a process capable of addressing the issue before that opportunity disappeared with the deadline.
“When a citizen follows the State’s rules, uses the State’s required forms, and brings a potentially serious problem to the State’s attention while a petition is still active, there must be a meaningful way to address that problem before the clock runs out,” Minnix said. “I believe the September 14 ruling represents an important step toward having those constitutional questions heard on their merits.”
Minnix is representing himself in the federal action, which has advanced into discovery. The parties have also participated in settlement-related proceedings, and Minnix continues to seek a jury trial on matters for which a jury trial is legally available.
Baggio’s decision leaves substantial questions for later stages of the case. Minnix must still establish the factual and legal elements of the claims he has been permitted to pursue, while Read may continue challenging those allegations and the relief Minnix seeks. The court’s authorization to amend the complaint does not determine whether the disputed recall instructions were constitutionally deficient, whether they caused the injuries Minnix alleges or whether the state is ultimately liable.
The litigation now proceeds with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims arising from the 2025 recall campaign. Any broader effect on Oregon’s recall procedures, or on future litigation involving petition deadlines and state-controlled election materials, will depend on subsequent rulings and the eventual disposition of the federal case.