What they said vs. what they meant
I've written a fair amount about Oregon Ballot Measure 113, which passed handily last fall. It bans legislators who walk out of a lawmaking session from being re-elected for an additional term. But the thing was so badly drafted that there's a major fight in progress about when the disqualification takes effect.
The Republicans who were targeted have filed their opening brief in the case, now before the Oregon Court of Appeals, and I've got it here. They are making the better argument; if I were a judge, I'd rule in their favor. But I'm not a judge, and the people who are judges are not like me. I would not be at all surprised if the Oregon Constitution did not mean what it says. Stranger things have happened around here.
Anyway, the brief is nicely done, and if you're interested in this ugly little Beaver State tussle, you should have a read.
Bullies think their prey run out of fear. But, the prey are pragmatic. They want to use time to reorganize and plan for the future.
ReplyDeleteI see visions of both sides in your comment
DeleteOregon entered the Union under the banner of the Party of Lincoln.
DeleteAbsurd outcome = ambiguity. Court will interpret accordingly.
DeleteThe GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln.
DeleteNor is it the party of Hatfield, McCall, or Atiyeh.
TBF, Oregon isn't the Oregon of the 70's and 80's any more (a quirky purple state with libertarian leanings).
DeletePortland's progressive electorate controls the state and they are not satisfied with simply imposing bad policies on themselves - every corner of the state must conform and suffer.
As the brief points out, the outcome is not absurd.
DeleteI’m not an expert in legal briefs, but that one appears to be very well done. And it’s convincing.
ReplyDeleteSo nice that we can count on more attempts at minority rule or temper tantrums. Whatever you want to all it.
ReplyDeleteLike we do with "Housing First" and "Vision Zero"? Those are not just *attempts* at minority rule; those are actual minority rule.
Delete