P.O. Box 230637 Tigard OR 97281 (503) 620-0258
Oregonians In Action
OIA-News
Contact Us

Recent court ruling encouraging to Measure 7 supporters

By Dave Hunnicutt

For Republicans, the Oregon Supreme Court’s recent decision rejecting their challenge to Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s legislative redistricting plan was a bitter defeat. But for Measure 7 proponents, the case provided some positive insight on how the Court may rule in the Measure 7 lawsuit.

Bradbury’s redistricting plan is certainly controversial. The plan fundamentally changes the shape of most legislative districts, and in many cases, leaves incumbent legislators outside of the districts they are required to represent.

After the plan was announced, several lawsuits were filed with the Oregon Supreme Court challenging all (or parts) of the plan. For purposes of Measure 7, the important challenges were those that questioned whether the Secretary of State had the authority under the Oregon Constitution to create a redistricting plan.

Prior to 1952, the Oregon Constitution did not authorize the Secretary of State to create a redistricting plan. In 1952, the voters adopted a constitutional amendment which provided that authority. The 1952 amendment was repealed, added to, and readopted in 1986.

Two of the lawsuits challenging Bradbury’s plan argued that the 1952 amendments, and their subsequent readoption in 1986, made more than one change to the constitution, and therefore violated the "separate vote" requirements of the Oregon constitution.

What makes this case relevant to the Measure 7 lawsuit is that the "separate vote" challenge was made to Measure 7, and Judge Lipscomb of the Marion County Circuit Court found that Measure 7 violated that provision.

The Oregon Supreme Court made short work of the "separate vote" argument in the redistricting case, finding that both the 1952 and 1986 amendments satisfied the separate vote requirements. The Court’s decision is a strong indicator that Measure 7 will satisfy the "separate vote" challenge raised against it as well.

"We were pleased that the Court rejected the separate vote challenge in the redistricting case," commented Dave Hunnicutt, Director of Legal Affairs for Oregonians In Action.

"The 1952 and 1986 amendments giving the Secretary of State the authority to create a redistricting plan made multiple changes to the constitution, while Measure 7 makes just one change. If the redistricting amendments survive a separate vote challenge, then Measure 7 should survive that challenge as well."

A Court decision on Measure 7 could come any day, but likely will not be issued for quite some time.

Measure 7 lawsuit argued in Oregon Supreme Court
Measure 7 litigation moves to Oregon Supreme Court
Legislature gives up on Measure 7
OIA defends Measure 7 in courts, State Capitol
Measure 7: The peoples response to gov't shenanigans
Passage Of Measure 7 Plugs An Unfair Loophole --
Critisims mount over Measure 7 judge


Text of Measure 7