Oregon Republicans sue Secretary of State over re-election ban
Nine Oregon Republican lawmakers and one Independent lawmaker halted work in the Capitol for six weeks during the 2023 legislative session in protest of various bills. Now, five of them are part of a lawsuit demanding they be allowed to seek re-election.
The 10 lawmakers each accumulated more than 10 unexcused absences during the walkout and triggered the voter-approved Measure 113 for the first time. Supporters of the ballot measure had hoped it would prevent further use of the walkout tactic Republicans have used in recent years to block passage of bills through the denial of quorum.
The measure disqualifies lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences from floor sessions in a single session from holding office.
On Friday, five lawmakers— Tim Knopp, R-Bend; Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles; Suzanne Weber, R-Tillamook; Dennis Linthicum, R-Klamath Falls, and Lynn Findley, R-Vale, — petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals to review Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade's ruling disqualifying them from running for re-election in the 2024 and 2026 elections.
On Monday, the lawmakers and Griffin-Valade filed a joint motion requesting the case head directly to the Oregon Supreme Court. This would move the process along more quickly.
Ruling from Secretary of State
On Aug. 8, Griffin-Valade directed the state elections division to implement the rule officially barring legislators who accrued 10 or more unexcused absences during the 2023 legislative session from running for legislative seats in the 2024 election.
“It is clear voters intended Measure 113 to disqualify legislators from running for reelection if they had 10 or more unexcused absences in a legislative session,” Griffin-Valade said earlier this month. “My decision honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood when Oregonians added it to our state constitution.”
Griffin-Valade rejected the argument that the language of the implemented amendment could allow lawmakers to serve an additional term after accumulating the absences and then be barred for the term after that. She said the explanatory statement in voters' pamphlet, the ballot title and the news coverage made it clear consequences would be immediate.
Courts have "emphasized" that voters' intent matters when interpreting the text of adopted ballot measures, Griffin-Valade added in her ruling.
Republicans argue plaint text contradicts ruling
Republicans point to the "plain text" of the constitutional amendment, which says 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session "shall disqualify the member from holding office as a Senator or Representative for the term following the election after the member's current term is completed."
In the petition filed Friday, Republicans argue that because elections are held before their current term is completed, any disqualification would be for the terms beginning on January 2029 and 2031 instead.
They are seeking a judicial review of the ruling.
"It boils down to what do you do when the text of a measure that is adopted, that goes to the constitution, is unambiguously clear on its own yet the descriptions of it in the voter's pamphlet and in other places which voters might have relied on differs with that in significant ways," John DiLorenzo, the attorney for the Republicans, said.
DiLorenzo said he did not disagree that the intent of the voters matters, as Griffin-Valade suggested, but questioned how to discern the intent of the voters. Not every voter reads "every inch" of the voter's pamphlet and newspaper coverage reflects some voters but not all, he suggested.
"I think you consult that stuff if there's an ambiguity in the text but when there's no ambiguity and the text is clear I think the safest course is to assume it means what it says," DiLorenzo added.
Not every disqualified lawmaker has joined the lawsuit, although its results will impact them all.
Sen. Brian Boquist, I-Dallas, said he will be challenging the ruling separately.
Push to Supreme Court
Both parties in the suit agreed to request the case be sent to the Oregon Supreme Court.
In their joint motion, both point to the tight deadlines each face. Should the temporary rule be upheld, lawmakers would be disqualified from running for and holding office during the immediate next term and Griffin-Valade needs a definitive answer before March 12, when candidates must file.
"This is a very special circumstance. There are extremely tight timeframes and it's in the public interest for potential candidates, opposition candidates, Secretary of State, election workers, everybody to know," DiLorenzo said.
Their suggested schedule would have an oral argument set for on or before Dec. 8.
Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her atdlugo@statesmanjournal.com or on Twitter @DianneLugo.
This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon Republicans sue Secretary of State over re-election ban
