Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from re-election if they have more than 10 unexcused absences. The Oregon Senate Republican Caucus charged that the state high court’s decision is “effectively ending the service of 10 Republican senators, who represent one-third of the Oregon Senate.”
.
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday decided that 10 Republican state senators who participated in a record-long boycott last summer to block bills extending access to abortion for minors, transgender procedures and medical intervention, as well as another measure on ghost guns, cannot seek re-election this year.
The Oregon Senate Republican Caucus charged that the “Democrat-stacked supreme court sides with Democrats and union cronies on Measure 113 despite plain language of Constitution.” The caucus stressed that the state high court’s decision is “effectively ending the service of 10 Republican senators, who represent one-third of the Oregon Senate.”
The ruling upholds Democratic Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade’s announcement last August to disqualify the 10 lawmakers from the ballot under a measure aimed at stopping such boycotts. Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from re-election if they have more than 10 unexcused absences.
Last year’s boycott lasted six weeks — the longest in state history — and stalled hundreds of bills. Five lawmakers sued over the secretary of state’s decision: Sens. Tim Knopp, Daniel Bonham, Suzanne Weber, Dennis Linthicum and Lynn Findley. They were among the 10 GOP senators who racked up more than 10 absences.
“We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. But more importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent,” Senate Republican Leader Knopp said Thursday.
“I’m disappointed but can’t say I’m surprised that a court of judges appointed solely by Gov. [Kate] Brown and Gov. [Tina] Kotek would rule in favor of political rhetoric rather than their own precedent. The only winners in this case are Democrat politicians and their union backers,” Weber added.
“Every legal mind I’ve heard from, regardless of political leanings, has affirmed that when there is only one interpretation for the plain language of the law, that is final,” Bonham added. “The language incorporated into the Oregon Constitution was clear and yet the Supreme Court ruled that voter intent, which cannot be determined by any metric, supersedes the Constitution. There is no justice in a political court.”
In deciding to remove the GOP lawmakers from the ballot, Griffin-Valade had directed her office’s elections division to implement an administrative rule based on her stance.
During oral arguments before the Oregon Supreme Court in December, attorneys for the senators and the state wrestled over the grammar and syntax of the language that was added to the state constitution after Measure 113 was approved by voters.
The amendment says a lawmaker is not allowed to run “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.” The senators claimed the amendment meant they could seek another term, since a senator’s term ends in January while elections are held the previous November. They argue the penalty doesn’t take effect immediately, but rather, after they’ve served another term.
The two sides also wrestled with the slight differences in wording that appeared on the actual ballot that voters filled out and the text of the measure as included in the voters’ pamphlet.
The ballot said the result of a vote in favor of the measure would disqualify legislators with 10 or more unexcused absences from holding office for the “term following current term of office.” It did not include the word “election,” as the text of the measure that appeared in the pamphlet did. What appeared in the pamphlet was ultimately added to the state constitution.
The state argued that in casting a “yes” vote in support of the measure, voters intended that legislators with that many absences be barred from running after their current term is up.
All parties in the suit had sought clarity on the issue before the March 2024 filing deadline for candidates who want to run in this year’s election.
Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a wide margin following Republican walkouts in the Legislature in 2019, 2020 and 2021, according to The Associated Press.
The 2023 walkout, which paralyzed the Legislature for weeks in preventing the state Senate from reaching a two-thirds quorum, ended after concessions from Democrats on a sweeping bill related to expanding access to abortion for minors and transgender procedures and medical intervention that Republicans had deemed too extreme and an affront to parental rights.
The initial measure would have allowed doctors to provide abortions regardless of a patient’s age, with medical providers not required to notify the parents of a minor in certain cases.
How about mandatory impeachment for any politician or legislator that makes any “law” which violates the United States Constitution?
That started in 1892 with the first national bank.
The problem with your idea Phillip — is that the courts created the power for them to decide who violates the Constitution. i.e. judicial review and judicial supremacy.
The Constitution does not give the courts judicial supremacy over the State Courts and Legislatures! That was a power grab by SCOTIS from 1803 to 1819.
Democrats are slowly realizing that the jig is up on their attempted communist takeover of the U.S. Their theft of the 2020 election is being exposed in Georgia. Their ideas are SO bad and unpopular that their only remaining strategy is to try to keep their opponents off of the ballots.
What are you talking about? Republicans are no different at all from the Democrats. Are you familiar with Tragedy and Hope?
One of the most dangerous things to our liberties are courts without informed juries.
Ex post facto laws – laws that proscribe as illegal activities which were not when engaged in, then used to retroactively sanction violations – are themselves illegal being explicitly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Laws like what is being applied here will generally not be enforced when violated by the “other” Party. It increasingly appears bipolar partisan politics are enforcing a two tiered “injustice” system.
In Michigan voting guide rules issued by the Sec. of State, were found on multiple occasions in Michigan Courts to be invalid. Yet those very outlawed rules were afterwards placed on ballot as a “constitutional amendment” for unlawfully using them to (ostensibly) pass themselves with(!) If such rogue impunity actions are allowed to remain, all pre-extant state law and court decisions have been conscripted and rendered meaningless, as we descend into a wholly corrupt state executive-fiat autocracy. Michigan’s 2022 mid-terms committed such ballot atrocity that needs further suing for overturning in Michigan’s Supreme court for being preveniently invalid even to… Read more »
In Michigan, voting guide rules issued by Sec. of State were pre-found on multiple occasions by Michigan Courts, to be “unlawful.” Yet those very rules were placed on the ballot, using them while legally invalid to use, to make themselves into law. If such rogue acts are unchallenged, what other state law and court decisions could simply be ignored, similarly conscripted and rendered meaningless? We must not allow a descent into a corrupt state executive-branch exercise of rogue fiat autocracy. Because Michigan’s 2022 mid-terms had this ballot initiative ploy in play, there’s need of further Court overruling. Having already determined… Read more »