PORTLAND, Ore. — A voter-approved measure meant to curb the power of legislative walkouts in Oregon will soon be put to the test in court. A lawsuit filed on behalf of multiple Republican lawmakers argues that Measure 113 has not been properly interpreted by the Oregon Secretary of State — an effort to allow those lawmakers another uninterrupted term in office.
With Democrats firmly in control of both the Oregon House and Senate, Republicans have used walkouts a number of times within the last few years to halt business in the legislature and provide them with leverage that they've been unable to achieve through votes and argument alone. Democrats have used the same tactic in the past, with less frequency.
Oregon's quorum rules, enshrined in the state constitution, make the tactic possible. Each chamber must have at least two-thirds of lawmakers in attendance in order to conduct floor votes — in most states a quorum is achieved by a simple majority. Instead of promoting a measure to overhaul Oregon's quorum rules, the petitioners behind Measure 113 came up with a middle path. Voters approved it by a landslide in November 2022, amending the Oregon Constitution.
With Measure 113 in effect, Article IV, Section 15 of the Oregon Constitution reads thusly:
"Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, 10 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."
But Republican lawmakers who were disqualified from running for office under Measure 113, represented by Portland lawyer John DiLorenzo, argue that those words mean something other than what the petitioners clearly intended, and what voters understood they'd be voting on.
"What was portrayed in the voter's pamphlet and reported by the press does not equate to the actual language that was used in the constitutional amendment," DiLorenzo told The Story's Pat Dooris.
A matter of interpretation
When the measure went before voters in 2022, the pamphlet explained the text to mean that lawmakers disqualified under Measure 113 by getting 10 or more unexcused absences would be unable to hold office next term — simple as that. They might be able to run, but they could not serve another consecutive term in the same office.
Republicans and DiLorenzo, however, have latched on to these words in the measure itself: "the election after the member's current term is completed." The ambiguity comes in because an election for the next term happens before the current term is over.
Republican Senators Tim Knopp, Lynn Findley and Dennis Linthicum each finish up their current terms on January 14, 2025. But the election to see who will serve that next term happens November 5, 2024. And Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade has interpreted Measure 113 to mean that those senators cannot run in that election.
DiLorenzo argues that Griffin-Valade's interpretation is wrong. Instead, he claims, the law impacts the first election after the members' current term is completed — and since their term ends in January 2025, the next election for that seat is not until November 2028. The same applies for Republican Senators Suzanne Weber and Daniel Bonham, but two years later, they claim.
The Portland attorney said that this argument is just the first step to getting Measure 113 overturned.
"The reason this is important is because we are also planning to challenge whether or not Measure 113 violates their rights to free speech, association and due process," DiLorenzo said. "But before we do that we have to figure out what it means."
"Alright, but what about, you know, the secretary of state saying, 'Listen. What the voters mean was, if you stage a boycott, you can't run for election next time,'" Dooris asked.
"Well, the secretary of state is saying it obviously means what we think the voters intended. And what we think the voters intended is based on what they read in the newspapers and what was in the voters pamphlet," DiLorenzo said. "And my rejoinder to that is — if the court is faced with a choice, implement what the measure clearly and unambiguously says ... (not) what somebody thinks the voters intended, you stick with the unambiguous language of the constitutional amendment."
"But do you think the voters really would have approved a measure that says ... 'Well alright, you can run for the next term. But the term after that, by golly, you can not come back!'" Dooris asked.
"Well, I don't know whether the voters would have intended that or not," DiLorenzo said. "The point is ... who is anyone to say what the voters intended without polling the voters? And the best poll is an election."
DiLorenzo believes that it will be six months before there's a final answer on this question of interpretation.
The popularity contest
When Measure 113 went before voters in November 2022, it won by a wide margin — over 68% in favor and just under 32% against.
Since many statewide votes in Oregon roughly break down along party lines, with more populated urban areas supporting Democratic candidates and sparsely populated rural areas supporting Republican candidates, it's often the case that just a handful of counties see a majority vote for the winning side. As a result, The Story has been asked a few times if Measure 113 passed in this manner, carried by the more populous liberal counties who've been burned by Republican walkouts in the last few years.
But that wasn't the case for Measure 113. Oregon has a total of 36 counties, and the yes vote won out in 34 of those counties. Only in Lake and Sherman counties did the no votes win out — and combined, the no votes outnumbered yes votes by just 258 across both counties.
There were four other counties where the vote came down to a slim margin, even if Measure 113 ultimately won the day. The measure passed in Grant County by 172 votes, in Wheeler County by 127 votes, in Gilliam County by 61 votes, and in Harney County by just 35 votes.
Statewide, however, it wasn't remotely close. Almost 1.3 million people voted in favor of Measure 113, versus about 600,000 against.
With that in mind, it's fair to say that the senators who accrued 10 or more unexcused absences during the Republican-led walkout this session actually contradicted the majority of constituents in their home districts.
The one district that came closest to voting down Measure 113, but still approved it by a majority, was Senate District 29. It's made up of Wallowa, Union, Umatilla, Morrow, Gilliam, Sherman and parts of Wasco counties. Republican Bill Hansell is current senator for that district, but he isn't a part of the lawsuit over Measure 113 — he's retiring next year.