Oregon Supreme Court agrees to hear GOP lawmakers' challenge on reelection ban
Five Oregon Republicans challenging Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade's decision barring them from running for reelection will make their arguments directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.
The Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted the Court of Appeals' certification sending the lawsuit straight to them. Both parties had jointly requested the case to head directly to the state Supreme Court, arguing a decision is needed prior to the March 2024 candidate filing deadline.
Tim Knopp, R-Bend; Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles; Suzanne Weber, R-Tillamook; Dennis Linthicum, R-Klamath Falls; and Lynn Findley, R-Vale; are challenging the validity of Griffin-Valade's earlier administrative rule barring the five from running for and holding office during their immediate next term after they participated in the 2023 legislative walkout.
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.
The 10 lawmakers each accumulated more than 10 unexcused absences during the walkout and triggered the voter-approved Measure 113 for the first time. The measure disqualifies lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences from floor sessions in a single session from holding office.
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.
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.”
Republicans in their challenge argue the actual language of the implemented measure says otherwise.
Ten 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," reads the constitutional amendment.
Elections are held before a lawmaker's current term is completed, meaning any disqualification would be for the terms beginning on January 2029 and 2031 instead, the Republicans say.
"Petitioners contend that, under Article IV, section 15, if a legislator accrues ten or more unexcused absences during a legislative term, the legislator is barred from running for election for the term after next, rather than for the next term," wrote John DiLorenzo, attorney for the five Republicans, in an October brief to the Supreme Court.
Griffin-Valade rejected the argument in her initial ruling. She said the explanatory statement in the 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.
With its decision to accept the case, the Oregon Supreme Court also set an updated schedule ordering Griffin-Valade's team to file their own answering brief by Friday.
Oral arguments are set to begin Dec. 14 at 1:30 p.m. in Salem.
Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her at dlugo@statesmanjournal.com or on Twitter @DianneLugo
This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon Supreme Court to hear Republicans' challenge to reelection ban
