Oregon Supreme Court upholds anti-obstructionist initiative
By 
Last year’s boycott lasted six weeks — the longest in state history — and paralyzed the legislative session, stalling 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.
The senators opposed the ruling in a statement.
“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,” said Knopp, the chamber’s Republican minority leader.
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 opinion is per curiam, which make sense because the challenge was frivolous — the language and purpose of the initiative was clear, states can put reasonable conditions on electoral qualifications, “you have to do your job if you want to get paid” is a perfectly reasonable qualification, and the that the right of “free expression” entails having legislative minorities having the endless right to obstruct the will of the majority is farcical. As a policy matter I think it would have been better to change quorum rule than expel obstructionist lawmakers, and I think there’s a good chance this cycle will just repeat itself again, but nothing in the Oregon or federal Constitution requires Oregon voters to choose the remedy I personally prefer.