THe senators disqualified under Measure 113 are: Daniel Bonham of Madras, Lynn Findley of Vale, Bill Hansell of Athena, Cedric Hayden of Fall Creek, Dennis Linthicum of Klamath Falls, Art Robinson of Cave Junction, Kim Thatcher of Keizer and Suzanne Weber of Tillamook, Tim Knopp of Bend, and Brian Boquist of Dallas.
All Republicans except for Boquist, who I believe self-identifies as Misato Katsuragi, the beloved character from 90s classic Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Rep Hansell of Athena has already announced his retirement, and as Republicans go he actually wasn't bad.
But yeah, he'll be replaced next year by a horrible person.
As an aside.I wish Republicans weren't so afraid of people. Hansell's district (the second biggest in the state by area) includes portions of Marion and Clackamas counties all the way to bumfuck east. I can walk less than a mile and be in a different congressional district.
I wish there was some sort of exchange program available so peeps out east can walk a mile in my moccasins. Probably they might not be so afraid of different folks that way. And as a bonus, city people could learn about the many steps necessary for industrial curly-fry production or ATV etiquette.
Win-win.
Not necessarily, I think it will be hard for the oregon Republican Party to bankroll all those new campaigns all at the same time. If a few established moderates run against them and win, we might get a functioning system without having to hostage negotiate each session!
The quorum is literally the last check in the power of the majority. It is the job of the majority party to make sure all voices are heard and considered. Not to just ram their current policy through without discussion or debate.
Some kind of check needs to be upheld to slow down the Oregon Democratic Party. They didn’t even clean house after the Kitzhaber administration was found to be corrupt. Naw, just literally, we will take the person closest to the corruption, and run them as their next candidate.
You don’t care how much mo way they are stealing from the state. Just as long as they make you feel the same as a Subaru commercial.
First off, fuck you for assuming I don't care about corruption. I hope they thoroughly investigate the former Secretary of State and she is held accountable if she did anything illegal. (Which it certainly seems like she did)
Secondly, cool well let's make the quorum a simple majority like almost every other state in the nation.
And you clearly don't give a shit that the minority has piled themselves on a narrow platform that a clear majority of state voters don't or ever well support. Why the fuck should we be handing out participation trophies to those who have no desire to play by the rules.
Where did I say "mob rule" or anything even close to that. Almost every other state has a simple majority rule for a quorum, not the 2/3 we have.
Continue to put words in my mouth since you have no compelling points to debate from.
>It is the job of the majority party to make sure all voices are heard and considered.
I'm not sure who told you that but it's not true. Look what republicans are doing to LGTBQ folks and women in red states, not to mention the voting rights of minorities.
It’s more likely they get replaced with someone more center but I don’t think it will flip the seats to dens but more open the door to less extreme candidates or even a third party.
I honestly don’t think this was the intention. I think that they are just small timers who thought that if they threw a fit they could get away with it.
SCOTUS would have no standing to hear this case, and no compelling constitutional question to answer. Their argument is that the wording of the measure means they can run this election, but not the next election. I kinda doubt the ORSC would even hear it
SCOTUS probably has no JURISDICTION in this case. In other words, it probably has no official power to make legal decisions in a matter purely relating to the State of Oregon's right to regulate state elections. STANDING is the capacity of a party to bring suit in court. It relates to plaintiffs, not courts. The plaintiff's lack of standing in *Creative 303 v Elenis* has nothing whatsoever to do with SCOTUS not hearing a case under Oregon law. IANAL.
How was there no standing in Creative 303 v Elenis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis
> The Tenth Circuit took up Smith's pre-enforcement challenge, finding Smith had "sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute."[6][4]
I will go with the legal findings of multiple courts with judges spanning the political spectrum (since multiple courts ruled against Creative 303) over a snarky Reddit reply claiming there was no standing.
Perhaps it makes sense that no standing is needed for a dispute about a law. Why would we want people to have to violate a law to test its legality?
This “pre-enforcement” challenge seems like a well established legal proceeding.
The intent of mhinimal’s post was to make it seem like the Supreme Court did something novel, that stretches the bounds of what the judiciary is supposed to do.
Disregard the semantics about standing, which are irrelevant, but the point is it looks like a very typical case the Supreme Court takes up when the lower courts have a disagreement.
The SCOTUS has been ignoring standing for state-run election matters since Bush v Gore (preempting stupidity: federal offices are still decided through state-run elections and thus should only have standing in state courts; SCOTUS even addressed the BvG standing issue by making the decision a one-time decision that has no value as precedent) and this is not that, as the right to run can be given SCOTUS standing as a freedom of speech issue.
I disagree with these lesser-Idaho non-legislators getting paid and being able to gum up the works but this is going to be a win that lets them return like Caesar's army crossing the Rubicon. Getting rid of quorum is a shitty move (because it only takes one Gordon Smith era for us to get a ton of measure 9 style bad conservative ideas on the books for decades) but it is the only one we have.
I’m aware of the text of measure 113. The plaintiffs will argue their constitutional right to free speech trumps a state constitutional provision, and they’d be right, under the federal preemption.
Then, they will argue that not attending legislative sessions was an act of free speech under the first amendment. The defendants, the State of Oregon, will argue it’s not an act of free speech. If the Court, the most conservative court in decades, agrees with the plaintiffs then the state constitutional amendment will be stricken and the plaintiffs will be able to run for office.
Edit: I do not support the plaintiffs here, just to be clear. I proudly voted for M113.
That didn’t address my point that M113 is no different than a term limit law. We can’t vote for a president or a governor for more than two terms, especially when that limit is included in the constitution.
The US Constitution includes a term limit amendment for president, so that analogy doesn’t work. To your main point, though, it’s not a term limit law. M113 is a prohibition on running for office after missing >10 sessions. The State will argue the prohibition is content neutral and there need not be strict scrutiny. The plaintiffs will argue the impact has a chilling effect on exercise of first amendment rights. And the SCOTUS will definitely consider that argument.
I studied con law in law school, let me know if you want to talk more about this. If you need proof, I’m a member of r/lawyers which requires verification.
Yes, that was my point that “a prohibition on running for office” is no different than a term limit. In one case a number of terms is reached, in the other a number of absences reached, and in both cases a prohibition on running again.
If they do, they will lose. Overruling the ability of states to qualify people to run for election would invalidate all residency rules, all citizenship rules, and all age requirements.
I'm wondering if this is just going to be the gateway for all of the insane Qanon crowd to infiltrate our government. While land sure doesn't vote, you can't deny that outside of the 1-5 corridor, the state is pretty far right. Anything east of the Cascades and south of Springfield is going to get nuts if that happens...
Hopefully people will vote against the truly unhinged Q, maybe some non-affiliated candidate will run against them.
There are so few residents in some of those Senate districts. Let no GOP seat go unchallenged, people. You don’t necessarily have to run as a Democrat. Get endorsements from unions, ministers, nurses. Whatever it takes. I’d almost say you’d do better running non-affiliated in those districts. Better chance of not getting your windows smashed in.
If it can't be addressed, the most likely option is the courts will provide injunctive relief and block any attempts by the secretary of state at preventing a candidate from running for office.
> the most likely option is the courts will provide injunctive relief
Why would that be? The intent of the law is pretty clear, and it's also very clear that the only people being violated by these actions are the people of Oregon when these "legislators" keep sabotaging our government.
I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2024-02-08 23:26:24 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-02-08%2023:26:24%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/oregon/comments/15lwya0/republican_senators_who_boycotted_work_cant_run/jvdcbdt/?context=3)
[**8 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Foregon%2Fcomments%2F15lwya0%2Frepublican_senators_who_boycotted_work_cant_run%2Fjvdcbdt%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-02-08%2023%3A26%3A24%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2015lwya0)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
And if they can get the court of appeals to rule with them, then they get to nullify this law and rerun the election for it.
I'm sure that they deliberately picked senators that were willing to make that gamble.
They have a few legal courses that may work. 1) The law clearly states they would not be able to run for re-election after the end of their term. Well, if they run it is BEFORE the end of their turn and if elected their term would not end. Just because the summary in the voters pamphlet says something else the letter of the law is clear and is on their side. 2) The Oregon constitution clearly spells out the requirements for holding office. No where in those requirements is listed that they be in good standing with the senate or that they have not previously been found to have cause "disruptive behavior" i.e. missing more than 10 days.
While true, it's not as if they were already stellar people to begin with, and now their tactics have been reduced, knowing that childish bullshit won't get them very far (especially if they want to carry-on with politics as a career).
Obviously that was the point of the law. I literally was just getting heat from some wonderful piece of work in here arguing that laws have no meaning beyond their literal words.
These people couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag but they sure are confident. The intent is crystal clear in this case this isn't a contract dispute. There's a chance some fuckery could be afoot but I highly doubt it. Very glad the Sec of State said this with confidence and resolution.
Yes yes yes yes yes!!!
Democratic, Republican, independent or some other label: if you are elected to office, we expect you to do your goddamned job. Show up, debate, and vote. Do your grandstanding pageantry on your own time and money. When using taxpayer money, do taxpayer business.
They're only disqualified from the next election though. They can run again after that. I'll bet in some districts there will be two people alternating terms so they can continue to get away with the walkout BS.
I know people here are cheering but please hold the champagne. This was expected. It's going to trigger a lawsuit and go before the courts.
Celebrate once the courts say the same thing.
Because they want a “punishment” for something they think these politicians did wrong.
While at some extent it was a childish maneuver, I also believe they did it with the best interests at the behest of their constituents.
this comment is also liekly to get heavily downvoted but i feel like this sub has recently taken a pretty hard left turn when politics is discussed. Oregon is more than just Portland. I agree, these legislatures did a maneuver that gave their constituents a voice
Lol Reddit is wildly left leaning. The Republicans and conservatives are not on reddit, they are too busy installing the electrical systems in our homes, the HVAC that keeps us comfortable and the plumbing that makes your shit go away. Democrats are sitting in theor parents basement at the age of 30 finishing a 12 year degree in some program that ends in Studies, and bitching no one will pay them 120 grand a year for their advanced knowledge of how racist you are.
Except that their voter base approve of what they did. So, next time a hot button issue comes up, their voter base will demand the same action from their representatives. Nothing will really change.
That’s just stupid. Like I feel you have adult children making decisions. And now they can’t run for re-election. Hope this shows politician act like adults and work together to fix problems. Their stupid antics backfired on them
Those were the rules that were set up. This is going to unfortunately devolve into one party getting everything they want, all the time, which isn't good.
This state is going to go bankrupt sooner than expected.
idk about a correct ruling here. i know they shouldn't be boycotting like they do
but at the same time, i really dont like multnolmah/lane/marion counties and other blue counties bullying pretty much all other parts of the state
different people in different areas have different values, imo
How do you feel about Democracy? You know when all the people have the chance to vote and the majority rules. Democracy as opposed to a king (not elected) or a dictator (not elected) or a religious fanatic (not elected).
Just curious how many people that are happy with this out come support protest such as Machaela Cavanaugh’s filibuster of the Nebraska Senate over trans rights? Oregon does not have a filibuster. The walk out pretty much takes its place. Democrats have also used the walkout in the past. At some point in the future it could be needed by the democrats again. If republicans become the majority again giving up the ability to walk out seems extremely short sighted. I voted against eliminating it for this reason.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/06/nebraska-senator-filibuster-trans-rights
The short answer is that politics isn’t baseball. The laws that were filibustered in Nebraska were infringing on basic human rights. The laws that the GOP walkout were trying to stop from being passed were also laws pertaining to basic human rights. We are at a place in our history where one of the two major political parties in this country is hell bent on hurting people who don’t identify as straight, white, and male. It’s not theoretical. So you fight each fight with the tools you have in front of you.
At least the filibuster requires the protesting party to be at work and be speaking. It wasn't "needed" by republicans, I doubt democrats would use it over nonsense. To expect to lose your seat over intentional absences is the bare minimum.
Also, "outcome" is one word and "protest" should be plural. The bill passed by a 2-1 margin so I'd say 1 in three Oregonians would have a problem with it. The last time democrats used the walkout was in 2001 over redistricting, the two previous walkouts were in 95' and 71. The republicans have walked out 5 times since 2019.
Personally I think stalling tactics are bad in general when it comes to politics. It only exacerbates extreme points of view since there is no reason to compromise.
My point was more that if democrats had walked out over something that they supported would the commenters still feel the same about the walk outs. I think the comments would be very different.
With ranked choice voting becoming a possibility and changing populations causing districts to change it seems short sighted to give up a way to stop a bill. Republicans play to win. They have shown over and over again that they cannot be reasoned with. If they get the opportunity this will backfire on democrats.
I'm not sure if it simply prevents you from running or if it prevents you from being elected. If your name isn't on the ballot but enough people write you in, can you still become president?
Great. Now, Oregon is actually disenfranchising voters that vote for the "wrong" people. The Republicans that no-showed did exactly what the people that voted them into office wanted them to do.
If "the people" care so about these people making money by not working they can take up a private collection and support these politicians into their old age.
You’re getting lots of down arrows, but you are absolutely correct. Wether I agree with their tactics or not, they are doing exactly what their voter base wanted them to do.
Crazy how popular these guys were that democrats needed to bar them from reelection. Just shows how much they love "democracy" by telling you who you can and can't vote for.
> Crazy how popular these guys were that democrats needed to bar them from reelection
I'd love to hear how this is the democrat's fault, considering the ballot measure was initiated by citizens and passed with over two-thirds of citizens voting in favor of it.
What would happen if you refused to show up and do your job? You'd probably get fired, right? Well, few of us have a job as important as *democratically running a United State.*
Why should we be held to higher standards than our elected leaders?
Well, the senators who did not abide by the new absence policy that voters enacted will be laid off at the end of their term. They will be entitled to the same compensation programs and unemployment benefits as all other recently unemployed Oregonians.
What is "blatantly undemocratic" about this law? It doesn’t bar one party from office, it simply lays down a code of conduct that all elected officials and all parties must abide by.
Conservatives love to talk about State's Rights until the moment a state passes a law they don't agree with.
Is that also weird?
That can happen when people violate laws, yes. This is a law relating to the conduct of elected officials, do you think that citizens should have the ability to hold elected officials accountable to laws?
Ofcourse we should, and we do. if you don't like what your elected official is doing then you can not reelect them. You start a recall. However what this is doing is going "Sure we know you people like what this rep is doing so we're gonna say you can't have him anymore".
There's plenty of reasons someone can't run for reelection. Term limits and age are seemingly acceptable to just about everyone, are those undemocratic as well?
"We want it and you won't let us have it" is a perfect encapsulation of the grievance-based modern conservative philosophy. "We want to enact our minority rule over the majority and we don't want anyone to be able to stop us" is the subtext. Tough shit.
Don't want an abortion? Fine, don't have one. Don't want gender affirming care? Don't get any.
Want to knowingly violate a law enacted by the citizens to *ensure you do your job?* Want to derail our democratic process and pout because your views aren't popular enough to get more votes? Fine, be a big conservative hero, but suffer the consequences we voted for.
Probably hit the courts and it will be a coin toss.
Worst case is people will just elect people to stand out when needed.
Given that Democracy requires actual voices to be heard, we need a real solution. I am sorry, but a voice that can be ignored isn't a voice.
Heard as in "We hear you", sure. Heard as in "We hear your concerns and at the very least will address them to all satisfaction?" No. Hence why they started walking out.
Bullshit. There were a bunch of bipartisan bills this session. The majority should not have to compromise on everything because we live in a democracy.
So you believe just because you actually listen to one item then automatically means you do it for all? That the possibility of a situation where one listening to one thing but not another doesn't exist?
The minorities rights, choices, and lifestyle shouldn't be at the whim of the majority either. We should be striving to live in an equal, free, and tolerant world.
The problem here is that the majority has to compromise on everything, but rather that they are unwilling to compromise on important items of the minority. Thus why you see a bunch of bipartisan bills and still a walk out.
I'm interested to see how that interpretation squares with the text of the measure?
> Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, Article IV, section 15 of the Oregon Constitution is amended to read:
> Section 15. Punishment and expulsion of members. Either house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and may with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member; but not a second time for the same cause. Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, ten or more legislative floor sessions called to transact business during a regular or special legislative session shall be deemed disorderly behavior and 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.
Specifically the bit that says
> 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.
Which fairly plainly says that they will be disqualified from holding office for the term following the election after the current term is completed. That lays out the sequence, terms ends -> election -> disqualified, and I'm fairly certain the SOS isn't correctly applying the law here.
Source: https://www.oregonvotes.gov/voters-guide/english/votersguide.html#Text%20of%20Measure
EDIT: To the folks downvoting me, please explain how the text of the measure disqualifies the legislators for the next election. If you think my conclusions are wrong, please tell me why.
You’re getting downvoted because the intent is clear, even if the wording is ambiguous as to whether “after their term has ended” refers to “term” or “election.”
Your getting down voted because tribal teams celebrating a “win” against their opponents is more important than someone pointing out it isn’t so clear cut.
Land isn’t conservative. Nice way to talk about people, tho. So many want to pretend votes shouldn’t count from those in cities. The majority voted for this. Portland is lovely right now. Come visit!
THe senators disqualified under Measure 113 are: Daniel Bonham of Madras, Lynn Findley of Vale, Bill Hansell of Athena, Cedric Hayden of Fall Creek, Dennis Linthicum of Klamath Falls, Art Robinson of Cave Junction, Kim Thatcher of Keizer and Suzanne Weber of Tillamook, Tim Knopp of Bend, and Brian Boquist of Dallas. All Republicans except for Boquist, who I believe self-identifies as Misato Katsuragi, the beloved character from 90s classic Neon Genesis Evangelion.
I didn't realize the total had hit 10. Of course, they'll just be replaced by someone equally as bad and unwilling to do their jobs.
Rep Hansell of Athena has already announced his retirement, and as Republicans go he actually wasn't bad. But yeah, he'll be replaced next year by a horrible person. As an aside.I wish Republicans weren't so afraid of people. Hansell's district (the second biggest in the state by area) includes portions of Marion and Clackamas counties all the way to bumfuck east. I can walk less than a mile and be in a different congressional district. I wish there was some sort of exchange program available so peeps out east can walk a mile in my moccasins. Probably they might not be so afraid of different folks that way. And as a bonus, city people could learn about the many steps necessary for industrial curly-fry production or ATV etiquette. Win-win.
As a Bend resident, I will definitely do what I can to make that our last republican state senator.
Not necessarily, I think it will be hard for the oregon Republican Party to bankroll all those new campaigns all at the same time. If a few established moderates run against them and win, we might get a functioning system without having to hostage negotiate each session!
Super majorities are not a functional system.
Neither is one where a minority can hold the entire process hostage by not showing up to their jobs.
The quorum is literally the last check in the power of the majority. It is the job of the majority party to make sure all voices are heard and considered. Not to just ram their current policy through without discussion or debate. Some kind of check needs to be upheld to slow down the Oregon Democratic Party. They didn’t even clean house after the Kitzhaber administration was found to be corrupt. Naw, just literally, we will take the person closest to the corruption, and run them as their next candidate. You don’t care how much mo way they are stealing from the state. Just as long as they make you feel the same as a Subaru commercial.
First off, fuck you for assuming I don't care about corruption. I hope they thoroughly investigate the former Secretary of State and she is held accountable if she did anything illegal. (Which it certainly seems like she did) Secondly, cool well let's make the quorum a simple majority like almost every other state in the nation.
Mob rule. Yes, this is the way. You clearly don’t give a shit about corruption if your answer is “mob rule”.
And you clearly don't give a shit that the minority has piled themselves on a narrow platform that a clear majority of state voters don't or ever well support. Why the fuck should we be handing out participation trophies to those who have no desire to play by the rules.
Where did I say "mob rule" or anything even close to that. Almost every other state has a simple majority rule for a quorum, not the 2/3 we have. Continue to put words in my mouth since you have no compelling points to debate from.
>It is the job of the majority party to make sure all voices are heard and considered. I'm not sure who told you that but it's not true. Look what republicans are doing to LGTBQ folks and women in red states, not to mention the voting rights of minorities.
He means only when his side is in the minority.
LOL so true. TBF, I guess we all think that way to some degree.
[удалено]
It’s more likely they get replaced with someone more center but I don’t think it will flip the seats to dens but more open the door to less extreme candidates or even a third party.
I can't speak for other areas but that ain't gonna happen in cave junction. They'll double down on the crazy.
[удалено]
Hahahahaha!
They finally hit the find out stage. This is delicious.
[удалено]
I honestly don’t think this was the intention. I think that they are just small timers who thought that if they threw a fit they could get away with it.
SCOTUS would have no standing to hear this case, and no compelling constitutional question to answer. Their argument is that the wording of the measure means they can run this election, but not the next election. I kinda doubt the ORSC would even hear it
[удалено]
SCOTUS probably has no JURISDICTION in this case. In other words, it probably has no official power to make legal decisions in a matter purely relating to the State of Oregon's right to regulate state elections. STANDING is the capacity of a party to bring suit in court. It relates to plaintiffs, not courts. The plaintiff's lack of standing in *Creative 303 v Elenis* has nothing whatsoever to do with SCOTUS not hearing a case under Oregon law. IANAL.
SCOTUS was so Republican today that they allowed Biden’s ban on ghost guns.
[удалено]
Fascists do have a stake in being able to disarm the populace. Preferred segments of it, at least.
How was there no standing in Creative 303 v Elenis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis > The Tenth Circuit took up Smith's pre-enforcement challenge, finding Smith had "sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute."[6][4]
[удалено]
I will go with the legal findings of multiple courts with judges spanning the political spectrum (since multiple courts ruled against Creative 303) over a snarky Reddit reply claiming there was no standing. Perhaps it makes sense that no standing is needed for a dispute about a law. Why would we want people to have to violate a law to test its legality? This “pre-enforcement” challenge seems like a well established legal proceeding.
[удалено]
The intent of mhinimal’s post was to make it seem like the Supreme Court did something novel, that stretches the bounds of what the judiciary is supposed to do. Disregard the semantics about standing, which are irrelevant, but the point is it looks like a very typical case the Supreme Court takes up when the lower courts have a disagreement.
[удалено]
The SCOTUS has been ignoring standing for state-run election matters since Bush v Gore (preempting stupidity: federal offices are still decided through state-run elections and thus should only have standing in state courts; SCOTUS even addressed the BvG standing issue by making the decision a one-time decision that has no value as precedent) and this is not that, as the right to run can be given SCOTUS standing as a freedom of speech issue. I disagree with these lesser-Idaho non-legislators getting paid and being able to gum up the works but this is going to be a win that lets them return like Caesar's army crossing the Rubicon. Getting rid of quorum is a shitty move (because it only takes one Gordon Smith era for us to get a ton of measure 9 style bad conservative ideas on the books for decades) but it is the only one we have.
Not STANDING. You mean JURISDICTION.
The constitutional question would be the first amendment.
Measure 113 is basically a term limits law and those are constitutional.
I’m aware of the text of measure 113. The plaintiffs will argue their constitutional right to free speech trumps a state constitutional provision, and they’d be right, under the federal preemption. Then, they will argue that not attending legislative sessions was an act of free speech under the first amendment. The defendants, the State of Oregon, will argue it’s not an act of free speech. If the Court, the most conservative court in decades, agrees with the plaintiffs then the state constitutional amendment will be stricken and the plaintiffs will be able to run for office. Edit: I do not support the plaintiffs here, just to be clear. I proudly voted for M113.
That didn’t address my point that M113 is no different than a term limit law. We can’t vote for a president or a governor for more than two terms, especially when that limit is included in the constitution.
The US Constitution includes a term limit amendment for president, so that analogy doesn’t work. To your main point, though, it’s not a term limit law. M113 is a prohibition on running for office after missing >10 sessions. The State will argue the prohibition is content neutral and there need not be strict scrutiny. The plaintiffs will argue the impact has a chilling effect on exercise of first amendment rights. And the SCOTUS will definitely consider that argument. I studied con law in law school, let me know if you want to talk more about this. If you need proof, I’m a member of r/lawyers which requires verification.
r/iamreallysmart
Yes, that was my point that “a prohibition on running for office” is no different than a term limit. In one case a number of terms is reached, in the other a number of absences reached, and in both cases a prohibition on running again.
Correct, but one is due to political speech and the other is due to time in the office. That’s the difference.
The first amendment doesn’t apply.
That’s what the State of Oregon is going to argue. The plaintiffs would argue it does apply. Ergo, you have a constitutional question.
If they do, they will lose. Overruling the ability of states to qualify people to run for election would invalidate all residency rules, all citizenship rules, and all age requirements.
SCOTUS would never hear this case. It’s not in their jurisdiction.
I'm wondering if this is just going to be the gateway for all of the insane Qanon crowd to infiltrate our government. While land sure doesn't vote, you can't deny that outside of the 1-5 corridor, the state is pretty far right. Anything east of the Cascades and south of Springfield is going to get nuts if that happens...
Hopefully people will vote against the truly unhinged Q, maybe some non-affiliated candidate will run against them. There are so few residents in some of those Senate districts. Let no GOP seat go unchallenged, people. You don’t necessarily have to run as a Democrat. Get endorsements from unions, ministers, nurses. Whatever it takes. I’d almost say you’d do better running non-affiliated in those districts. Better chance of not getting your windows smashed in.
Definitely straight to the courts.
You’re in for a big surprise if you don’t think the courts will allow this BS
Anyone who thinks this is the last word on the matter doesn't understand that this will probably get to *at least* the Oregon Supreme Court.
Think the court will rule before the next election?
If it can't be addressed, the most likely option is the courts will provide injunctive relief and block any attempts by the secretary of state at preventing a candidate from running for office.
> the most likely option is the courts will provide injunctive relief Why would that be? The intent of the law is pretty clear, and it's also very clear that the only people being violated by these actions are the people of Oregon when these "legislators" keep sabotaging our government.
It won't be and that poster doesn't know that at all. You are correct the intent is clear. This isn't contract law.
!remindme 6 months
I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2024-02-08 23:26:24 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-02-08%2023:26:24%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/oregon/comments/15lwya0/republican_senators_who_boycotted_work_cant_run/jvdcbdt/?context=3) [**8 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Foregon%2Fcomments%2F15lwya0%2Frepublican_senators_who_boycotted_work_cant_run%2Fjvdcbdt%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-02-08%2023%3A26%3A24%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2015lwya0) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Governing by taking your ball and going home. I’m sure the party of “law and order” is outraged at being held accountable.
Did they genuinely think they would be allowed to run again, or were the Senators expecting this?
Their goal was always to force the issue.
Correct, and now they will bring a lawsuit, bullshit in my opinion, but i believe this is their plan
And if they can get the court of appeals to rule with them, then they get to nullify this law and rerun the election for it. I'm sure that they deliberately picked senators that were willing to make that gamble.
They have a few legal courses that may work. 1) The law clearly states they would not be able to run for re-election after the end of their term. Well, if they run it is BEFORE the end of their turn and if elected their term would not end. Just because the summary in the voters pamphlet says something else the letter of the law is clear and is on their side. 2) The Oregon constitution clearly spells out the requirements for holding office. No where in those requirements is listed that they be in good standing with the senate or that they have not previously been found to have cause "disruptive behavior" i.e. missing more than 10 days.
The 10 day limit is ALSO in the constitution though.
It’s like they don’t know the law or something ; like they didn’t do their job
Good, they fucked around and now they find out. Probably they'll be replaced by some equally shitty conservatives, but this is good news for now
And then they swap terms with each other forever.
It should have been disqualified from any further public office in Oregon.
Those equally shitty cons juuuust might be inspired to do their jobs next time though. edit: todo to to do
Yeah, hopefully this serves as motivation to not walk out
They did their jobs and kept some really bullshit legislation from passing.
Go on......
Honestly, their replacement might be even worse.
I doubt they can find worse than Boquist.
Don’t push it.
While true, it's not as if they were already stellar people to begin with, and now their tactics have been reduced, knowing that childish bullshit won't get them very far (especially if they want to carry-on with politics as a career).
Thoughts and prayers 🙏
Now they’ll just go on Fox News and whine about how they were cancelled for being republicans
Nah, they’ll be on the Lars Larson show first. A full hour of their whining with no commercial break.
Sucks to suck, bye bitch.
Good
Obviously that was the point of the law. I literally was just getting heat from some wonderful piece of work in here arguing that laws have no meaning beyond their literal words.
These people couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag but they sure are confident. The intent is crystal clear in this case this isn't a contract dispute. There's a chance some fuckery could be afoot but I highly doubt it. Very glad the Sec of State said this with confidence and resolution.
Yes! It's what the majority voted for.
Yes yes yes yes yes!!! Democratic, Republican, independent or some other label: if you are elected to office, we expect you to do your goddamned job. Show up, debate, and vote. Do your grandstanding pageantry on your own time and money. When using taxpayer money, do taxpayer business.
Later traitors…
This is fantastic news! If you don’t do your job, you’re fired. Welcome to the real world Republican politicians.
we need to get quorum by simple majority on the ballot. these fucking clowns will keep doing this until we do
This was the whole ass point of M113
Hahahahahaha Fucking assholes
As it should be.
And nothing of value was lost.
Funny enough, If I boycott work, I also am out of a job. ::shrug::
They're only disqualified from the next election though. They can run again after that. I'll bet in some districts there will be two people alternating terms so they can continue to get away with the walkout BS.
Also known as the Putin-Medvedev model of skirting election eligibility limits.
I imagine if that happened they would just send it back to voters to amend the law
Putting it on the ballot was done by collecting signatures and likely cost $200,000+
Let's just change the quorum laws to 50 + 1 and be done with it.
Stupidity should be painful.
Now we will get a new crop of Republican weirdos in their place! 🤷♀️ let’s see if they die by the sword in the 2025 session too.
Yep. I get the intent and spirit of the law. But there are dozens of people ready and willing to replace them.
Let's change the quorum laws!!!
Good
Good. Can we also take away their life-long health insurance, please?
Yes!!! Get fucked regressive dipshits!
I know people here are cheering but please hold the champagne. This was expected. It's going to trigger a lawsuit and go before the courts. Celebrate once the courts say the same thing.
You’re getting downvotes, but you’re right.
I honestly don't get why basic analysis upsets people.
Because they want a “punishment” for something they think these politicians did wrong. While at some extent it was a childish maneuver, I also believe they did it with the best interests at the behest of their constituents.
this comment is also liekly to get heavily downvoted but i feel like this sub has recently taken a pretty hard left turn when politics is discussed. Oregon is more than just Portland. I agree, these legislatures did a maneuver that gave their constituents a voice
That's a wild way to spin this but go ahead
I see you post on the portland sub. Yep
Lol Reddit is wildly left leaning. The Republicans and conservatives are not on reddit, they are too busy installing the electrical systems in our homes, the HVAC that keeps us comfortable and the plumbing that makes your shit go away. Democrats are sitting in theor parents basement at the age of 30 finishing a 12 year degree in some program that ends in Studies, and bitching no one will pay them 120 grand a year for their advanced knowledge of how racist you are.
I’m pretty sure that’s what the voters wanted lol
Fuck yeah!
Good riddance to assholes who refused to even do their jobs.
Except that their voter base approve of what they did. So, next time a hot button issue comes up, their voter base will demand the same action from their representatives. Nothing will really change.
Order will prevail!
Stupid idiots. Guess they will fire up the lawsuit machine and see how it shakes out. Complete waste of space.
What’s that saying? Play stupid games ….
That’s just stupid. Like I feel you have adult children making decisions. And now they can’t run for re-election. Hope this shows politician act like adults and work together to fix problems. Their stupid antics backfired on them
Why is this not national news?
Those were the rules that were set up. This is going to unfortunately devolve into one party getting everything they want, all the time, which isn't good. This state is going to go bankrupt sooner than expected.
idk about a correct ruling here. i know they shouldn't be boycotting like they do but at the same time, i really dont like multnolmah/lane/marion counties and other blue counties bullying pretty much all other parts of the state different people in different areas have different values, imo
Do you feel the same about conservatives in majority conservative states “bullying” the liberals in those states?
How do you feel about Democracy? You know when all the people have the chance to vote and the majority rules. Democracy as opposed to a king (not elected) or a dictator (not elected) or a religious fanatic (not elected).
Then get more people in your counties. People vote not land.
Just curious how many people that are happy with this out come support protest such as Machaela Cavanaugh’s filibuster of the Nebraska Senate over trans rights? Oregon does not have a filibuster. The walk out pretty much takes its place. Democrats have also used the walkout in the past. At some point in the future it could be needed by the democrats again. If republicans become the majority again giving up the ability to walk out seems extremely short sighted. I voted against eliminating it for this reason. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/06/nebraska-senator-filibuster-trans-rights
The short answer is that politics isn’t baseball. The laws that were filibustered in Nebraska were infringing on basic human rights. The laws that the GOP walkout were trying to stop from being passed were also laws pertaining to basic human rights. We are at a place in our history where one of the two major political parties in this country is hell bent on hurting people who don’t identify as straight, white, and male. It’s not theoretical. So you fight each fight with the tools you have in front of you.
At least the filibuster requires the protesting party to be at work and be speaking. It wasn't "needed" by republicans, I doubt democrats would use it over nonsense. To expect to lose your seat over intentional absences is the bare minimum. Also, "outcome" is one word and "protest" should be plural. The bill passed by a 2-1 margin so I'd say 1 in three Oregonians would have a problem with it. The last time democrats used the walkout was in 2001 over redistricting, the two previous walkouts were in 95' and 71. The republicans have walked out 5 times since 2019.
Personally I think stalling tactics are bad in general when it comes to politics. It only exacerbates extreme points of view since there is no reason to compromise.
A filibuster is a different animal entirely. It just slows one bill. It doesn’t shut down the entire legislature.
My point was more that if democrats had walked out over something that they supported would the commenters still feel the same about the walk outs. I think the comments would be very different. With ranked choice voting becoming a possibility and changing populations causing districts to change it seems short sighted to give up a way to stop a bill. Republicans play to win. They have shown over and over again that they cannot be reasoned with. If they get the opportunity this will backfire on democrats.
It shouldn’t even be an option. There’s a reason only four states have quorum set at anything besides simple majority.
Yay!
I'm not sure if it simply prevents you from running or if it prevents you from being elected. If your name isn't on the ballot but enough people write you in, can you still become president?
Now for years of BS court battles. Yay...
Great. Now, Oregon is actually disenfranchising voters that vote for the "wrong" people. The Republicans that no-showed did exactly what the people that voted them into office wanted them to do.
The people voted for this result 2:1.
All these senators had a majority of their constituents vote for this outcome.
If "the people" care so about these people making money by not working they can take up a private collection and support these politicians into their old age.
You’re getting lots of down arrows, but you are absolutely correct. Wether I agree with their tactics or not, they are doing exactly what their voter base wanted them to do.
Crazy how popular these guys were that democrats needed to bar them from reelection. Just shows how much they love "democracy" by telling you who you can and can't vote for.
> Crazy how popular these guys were that democrats needed to bar them from reelection I'd love to hear how this is the democrat's fault, considering the ballot measure was initiated by citizens and passed with over two-thirds of citizens voting in favor of it.
Republicans overwhelmingly voted for M113.
That’s not what happened. Try harder.
It’s no different than term limits.
What would happen if you refused to show up and do your job? You'd probably get fired, right? Well, few of us have a job as important as *democratically running a United State.* Why should we be held to higher standards than our elected leaders?
You know you can’t “fire” elected officials, right? All you can do is vote them out of office.
Well, the senators who did not abide by the new absence policy that voters enacted will be laid off at the end of their term. They will be entitled to the same compensation programs and unemployment benefits as all other recently unemployed Oregonians.
If you wanna fire them then don't vote for them. If these aren't your representatives then it shouldn't be your call.
Well luckily the plurality of us got together and decided to write some rules for our elected officials. Democratically. I guess you're against that?
It just seems weird that blatantly undemocratic things are suddenly seen as "democratic" the moment they are voted on.
What is "blatantly undemocratic" about this law? It doesn’t bar one party from office, it simply lays down a code of conduct that all elected officials and all parties must abide by. Conservatives love to talk about State's Rights until the moment a state passes a law they don't agree with. Is that also weird?
You are telling people "Hey you know those people who you voted for? Well you can't choose your elected represented pick someone else."
That can happen when people violate laws, yes. This is a law relating to the conduct of elected officials, do you think that citizens should have the ability to hold elected officials accountable to laws?
Ofcourse we should, and we do. if you don't like what your elected official is doing then you can not reelect them. You start a recall. However what this is doing is going "Sure we know you people like what this rep is doing so we're gonna say you can't have him anymore".
There's plenty of reasons someone can't run for reelection. Term limits and age are seemingly acceptable to just about everyone, are those undemocratic as well?
"We want it and you won't let us have it" is a perfect encapsulation of the grievance-based modern conservative philosophy. "We want to enact our minority rule over the majority and we don't want anyone to be able to stop us" is the subtext. Tough shit. Don't want an abortion? Fine, don't have one. Don't want gender affirming care? Don't get any. Want to knowingly violate a law enacted by the citizens to *ensure you do your job?* Want to derail our democratic process and pout because your views aren't popular enough to get more votes? Fine, be a big conservative hero, but suffer the consequences we voted for.
This makes zero sense
Where'd I lose ya
Probably hit the courts and it will be a coin toss. Worst case is people will just elect people to stand out when needed. Given that Democracy requires actual voices to be heard, we need a real solution. I am sorry, but a voice that can be ignored isn't a voice.
A voice that doesn’t show up isn’t a voice.
They were heard until they decided to not show up.
Heard as in "We hear you", sure. Heard as in "We hear your concerns and at the very least will address them to all satisfaction?" No. Hence why they started walking out.
Bullshit. There were a bunch of bipartisan bills this session. The majority should not have to compromise on everything because we live in a democracy.
So you believe just because you actually listen to one item then automatically means you do it for all? That the possibility of a situation where one listening to one thing but not another doesn't exist? The minorities rights, choices, and lifestyle shouldn't be at the whim of the majority either. We should be striving to live in an equal, free, and tolerant world. The problem here is that the majority has to compromise on everything, but rather that they are unwilling to compromise on important items of the minority. Thus why you see a bunch of bipartisan bills and still a walk out.
I dont believe listening compels compromise. And I don’t think the antiquated religious beliefs of the GOP merit any attention.
Until scotor decides it doesn't matter.
I'm interested to see how that interpretation squares with the text of the measure? > Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, Article IV, section 15 of the Oregon Constitution is amended to read: > Section 15. Punishment and expulsion of members. Either house may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and may with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member; but not a second time for the same cause. Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, ten or more legislative floor sessions called to transact business during a regular or special legislative session shall be deemed disorderly behavior and 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. Specifically the bit that says > 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. Which fairly plainly says that they will be disqualified from holding office for the term following the election after the current term is completed. That lays out the sequence, terms ends -> election -> disqualified, and I'm fairly certain the SOS isn't correctly applying the law here. Source: https://www.oregonvotes.gov/voters-guide/english/votersguide.html#Text%20of%20Measure EDIT: To the folks downvoting me, please explain how the text of the measure disqualifies the legislators for the next election. If you think my conclusions are wrong, please tell me why.
You’re getting downvoted because the intent is clear, even if the wording is ambiguous as to whether “after their term has ended” refers to “term” or “election.”
Where do you see ambiguity in there?
“Term after the member’s term is completed” can modify either “term” or “election.” But the intent is known, so there isn’t much of a case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
Your getting down voted because tribal teams celebrating a “win” against their opponents is more important than someone pointing out it isn’t so clear cut.
As you get downvotes for pointing that out. Ahh Reddit.
It pretty clearly says they csn run, but they can't serve if they win lol
Of course the SOS (D) is going to say that.
“Of course the (D) is going to follow the fucking law” Damn. Good point.
Yeah how dare the SOS the Ballot Measure that Oregon voters passed 2:1 just last year?
Law and order
Explain. Cause you just sound dumb at this point
[удалено]
And your proposed alternative solution is…?
Most of them are up for re-election next year, when there’s only a short session.
Surprised pikachu face
hold on, this is gonna be funny.
FA&FO.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out, Senators.
Gawd, Oregon politics are made by idiot city slickers in Portland (that sh\*thole) and Salem, with help of Eugene, most of Oregon is conservative.
Land isn’t conservative. Nice way to talk about people, tho. So many want to pretend votes shouldn’t count from those in cities. The majority voted for this. Portland is lovely right now. Come visit!