Oregon senators who ran afoul of Measure 113 will be barred from running in 2024

FULL TITLE -
Oregon senators who ran afoul of Measure 113 will be barred from running in 2024, secretary of state confirms

SNIP
Under Measure 113, state lawmakers who have 10 or more unexcused absences in a single legislative session are barred from holding office during the following term. The measure was intended as a crackdown on legislative walkouts, which Oregon Republicans have used almost every year since 2019 to stall or kill specific bills by denying Democrats the quorum needed to hold votes.

Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a more than two-to-one margin in November 2022, making the 2023 legislative session the first test case for the constitutional amendment's effectiveness as a deterrent — and it quickly became clear that it wasn't going to work.

The majority of the missing Republicans and Independents knowingly racked up far more than 10 unexcused absences during the walkout, but several of them announced that they still planned to run for re-election in 2024, setting up a showdown over Measure 113.
ENDSNIP

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/po...-113/283-c35b0da3-8076-4869-a34a-a54ec1c7dd37

Note, the current state Senate is 30 (17 D, 11 R and 2 I).... These 10 is made up of 9 R and 1 I, meaning 2 Republicans did not meet this criteria, so they managed to follow the rules...

Of course, the end result here, assuming these are red areas, is you'll get a whole new crop of GOP elected deadbeats to miss votes in 2025 and beyond, then I supppose this current set of deadbeats will be elected in the election after this one.

And of course, you still have any 2024 legislative sessions to get through with this current crop.

This is a decent starting idea, but it doesn't go far enough and it isn't going to solve the base problem.

Thoughts? Certainly the will of the Oregon voter should be respected here, since the vote behind Measure 113 was 2-1...

 

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/05...holar-on-challenge-to-oregon-walkout-measure/ They should have just wrote an amendment to change the Quorum consistent with what virtually all other states do, which demands a simple majority attend a given session, IMO. Here's the most potent winning federal constitutional argument against this current application of the amendment. The interviewee is a professor of constitutional law at my alma mater.
"Williams: It’s not a straight up challenge to Measure 113 on its face, but it’d be more particularized as to whether the Senate President’s decisions regarding what qualify as excused absences and what are unexcused absences, whether the Senate President is making those decisions in a legal way, or potentially violating the federal rights, both constitutional and statutory, of individual senators.

What strikes is that both in the Oregon House of Representatives and in the Oregon Senate, there’s no guidelines as for what qualifies as an excused or unexcused absence. School districts here in Oregon have more detailed rules about what qualify as excused and unexcused absences for students than what we have for Oregon legislators. And the fact that it’s going to be a lone individual, the Senate President or the Speaker of the House, making that decision is also I think going to give federal courts pause about a lone individual with no guidance regarding what qualifies as an excused or unexcused absence making this type of significant decision, I do think is going to be grist for a federal court lawsuit."

Here's the other argument that Republicans have been talking about and was alluded to in the OP
Miller: I want to turn to one more big wrinkle here, which is the timing. The constitutional amendment reads that 10 or more unexcused absences “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.” The wrinkle is that elections happen in November, but terms aren’t complete until the following January. So even though it seems pretty clear what the intent of voters was, the plain language of our current constitution says that a senator elected this past November could seemingly run for and serve another four year term in another 3.5 years. What do judges do when there is such a discrepancy between the text, in this case the text of the constitution, and the intent of the voters who amended that constitution?

Williams: My answer is going to be, we’ll see. The Oregon Supreme Court has two different lines of cases here. One line of cases say if the text is unambiguous, the text governs. They have another line of cases that say in interpreting the Oregon Constitution, we must always give effect to the will of the voters, the will of Oregonians. And Measure 113 is a great example of a measure where the text says one thing, and the intent of the voters was clearly different. And it will ultimately be for the Oregon Supreme Court to decide whether it’s the text or the voters’ intent that governs here. And again, there are cases where the Oregon Supreme Court has gone one way in the past, and cases where they’ve gone a different way on that issue. So it’ll be interesting to see."

By the way, my Dad used to teach law at this school.

 

A positively delightful bit of self owning whatever the final result.

 

My understanding is that none of the 10 even bothered trying to make their absences excused (I.E. Mass calling in 'sick' or whatever).

I've read that section of law a couple of times, and they really didn't need to add "following the election".

This should have been sufficient. Terms automatically follow elections, so those 3 words are the problem.

“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.”

It's nonsensical that this was meant to say they can serve a term after this current term, THEN they are disqualified...

 

I'm all in favor of laws like this. It would hit both parties as they both do this kind of bullshit.

 

I'm in favor of this as long as it isn't biased towards 1 party. I noticed the OP only mentioned Republicans and independents (SHOCKER!), I'm guessing democrats have 100% perfect attendance?

 

The OP only mentioned the 10 that violated the rule... Just the facts, maam....

Much like elementary school (a perfect comparison), you don't need perfect attendance, but there are now attendance standards..

And I noted that 2 R's did NOT violate the rule, so I'm covered, partisanship-wise

 

I started another topic about this but was told the title of my thread violated the rules of the forum.

So I will just say it here.

This is from the "Fool around and Find Out" file.

They fooled around and now they are finding out.

 

Oh, was that what that thread was about? Yeah, that won't fly in Current Events...

 

let us not forget the Texan group who walked out.

If the majority of Oregon voters like the hell-hole created thanks to their Democrat votes, then so be it. Those GOP members should basically do their job or quit. They can if possible, find some reliable media source and discuss facts that are happening there and shed some sunlight onto what the Democrat politicians are doing. If voters continue to vote Democrat, then the voters must like what is happening.

The same goes for places with GOP majority

 

Not so much for the GOP majority. The GOP loves to gerrymander districts that will give them the majority in state legislatures despite the fact that the actual votes were majority Democrat or only very slim majority Republican.

 

They need to do this at the national level and "campaigning" should not be an excused absence

 

Partisanship riddled the op lol. But I think you know why.

Regardless, in cases this is applied without political malice it’s great.

 

oh please

both sides play games. I'm sorry if your sources are the Democrat news outlets. It's become about party and not serving the people.

 

or Wisconsin

14 Democratic senators flee Wisconsin, union protests escalate - Ballotpedia

 

Looks like much of the state was up in arms over whatever current BS the GOP was trying to pull.... that time...

Have any updates on the Badger 14?

 

Probably. This is one power a minority party has and in Oregon the Republicans are a permanent minority. Stall stall stall. Frankly though, if these states are going to eventually go radically leftist, I would rather it happen quickly so that people can quickly see how damaging it is. But I understand if Oregon republicans don't want to be the example.

 

No updates, other than there are only 11 of them now. lol

 

I think there must have been a better way to address this issue.

The vast majority of the counties and land area in Oregon are moderately conservative-leaning, but the Portland area dominates the state's politics due to population numbers being concentrated there.
(Even Eugene, the state's capital, is only moderately progressive-leaning, compared to Portland)

 

You need to pay attention.
The standard is not 100% attendance so I don't see why the OP would address every absence by every person

 

Well, it's a solidly gerrymandered state... hopefully that changes with a 4-3 majority in the SC....

lol..

 

Such as?

Immediate disqualification is the only thing that comes to mind, much like Tennessee did for their 2 members.

Force expensive special elections, with the current offenders unable to run again, for the Special AND the next General?

I'd like that... immediate punishments are always the best way to go...

 

Perhaps. Perhaps they could hold a vote and choose to expel them for refusing to show up for a vote to prevent it from passing, if it was clearly intentional.
But there is a reason those quorum requirement rules exist.
It is a little bit more complicated than you think. If you change the rules it can have implications that you might not foresee.

 

How the hell is “land area” conservative leaning? Not to mention so what? Land does not vote.

 

Life is hard enough... why do you indicate that problem solving is beyond our abilities? That IS a conservative tactic going back several decades...

How is this more complicated than I think? (As if you'd be able to determine that).

I myself do not see this Measure 113 as the long term answer, but it's a start in that direction...