OUR VIEW LOGO (NEW)

It came as no surprise when a group of Republican state senators filed suit Friday to keep their jobs in the Legislature based on the premise that Oregon voters signed up for something without first reading the fine print.

That it came as no surprise wasn’t much of a surprise, either.

The suit presented to the Oregon Court of Appeals by the five GOP senators — a group including Dennis Linthicum of Klamath Falls, whose District 28 seat stretches into Jackson County — seeks to prevent them from being barred from seeking reelection under Measure 113, which was passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2022.

The case should be labeled “Intent vs Semantics.”

Measure 113 added an amendment to the Oregon Constitution that would disqualified legislators from re-election following the end of their term if they were absent for at least 10 floor sessions without permission.

The proponents of the measure sought to end the practice of action-delaying walkouts, such as the one that stalled this year’s session, by imperiling the job security of those who step away.

At least, that’s how it was interpreted by Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade who — supported by an opinion by the state Department of Justice — ruled this month that Measure 113 was meant to block lawmakers who walked out from running again.

“My decision,” she said “honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood.”

Well, yes … and no.

Pull Quote

There are many questions to be answered here, but the biggest would appear to be this: Was no one involved in getting Measure 113 on the ballot capable of doing the math?

While the 68% who voted for the amendment might have thought that’s what they were doing, the language in Measure 113 may have created a legal loophole that the five Republican senators are relying on to hold their seats.

The phrase at the crux of this mess, according to the suit, is that banishment can only apply to the “term following the election after the member’s current term is complete.”

Linthicum and two others have terms ending in 2024, which they argue would make them eligible to run next year because (and this is where it gets sticky) the actual election “after” their term is complete would be in 2026.

There are many questions to be answered here, but the biggest would appear to be this: Was no one involved in getting Measure 113 on the ballot capable of doing the math?

In retrospect, there seemingly was a simpler, and easier to understand, phrasing available — bar legislators from running in the election following the unexcused absences.

We’re not naive enough to believe that even that language would go unchallenged; but the convoluted nature of Measure 113 has left it open to personal and legal interpretation.

Does it mean what it says, or what voters thought it said? And, if the latter, whose call is that ultimately to make?

The suit is likely to continue beyond the Court of Appeals. It seems destined to wind up before the Oregon Supreme Court and, depending on decisions along the way, even higher along the judicial food chain.

The upshot is, this isn’t likely going to solved anytime soon — and even when it is, someone will claim they’ve been wronged.

And that, as exasperating as it is to say, also won’t be much of a surprise.