Ore. Republicans Slam State's High Court Reelection Ban Ruling

Oregon state Senate Republicans blasted the state's Supreme Court ruling Thursday that disqualified them from reelection, saying that partisan politics replaced the rule of law.

The "Democrat-stacked" Supreme Court sided with state Democrats that disallowed one-third of the Senate from running for reelection sooner than they expected over 13 words of the state's 2022 law Measure 113.

Five of the 10 pols affected sued Oregon's secretary of state, arguing that they should be able to serve one more term before being disqualified. The high court's ruling enforced Democrats' stance that they would be immediately barred from seeking reelection. Every participating justice was appointed by former Democrat Gov. Kate Brown; Justice Aruna Masih, appointed by current Democrat Gov. Tina Kotek, sat out the decision, the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported.

"I'm disappointed but can't say I'm surprised that a court of judges appointed solely by Governor Brown and Governor Kotek would rule in favor of political rhetoric rather than their own precedent," one of the affected, Sen. Suzanne Weber, said in a statement. "The only winners in this case are Democrat politicians and their union backers."

Weber was elected to a four-year term in 2022 and will serve until 2027. But another four, including Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, must end their Senate careers — at least temporarily — in January.

"We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling. But more importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent," Knopp said in a statement.

In an expanded statement to Newsmax, Knopp said that the only way for Senate Republicans to avoid violating Oregon law and chamber rules "was to walk out on Senate floor sessions until Democrats became lawful."

"It took 43 days of quorum denial before Democrats agreed to follow the law and Senate rules," Knopp told Newsmax in an email. "In doing so the Democrat senate President gave each Republican Senate member more than 10 unexcused absences leading to the court case.

"In the future fellow legislators may not speak out or be willing to bare the penalty, not being able to run again. It could clearly affect speech and appropriate behavior," he added.

It started when nine of the 12 Republican members and one independent member of Oregon's Senate embarked on a six-week boycott of legislative sessions last year in opposition to bills on abortion and gun control. Their walkout came after Oregonians voted in 2022 in favor of a ballot measure to amend the constitution to disqualify truant lawmakers from a subsequent term in office.

In that amendment, a lawmaker who had 10 or more unexcused absences from legislative sessions was deemed to be engaged in "disorderly behavior" and was disqualified from serving in the legislature "following the election after the member's current term is completed."

Last August, Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, a Democrat, ruled that the 10 lawmakers who boycotted the Senate were thereby disqualified from the ballot in 2024's elections.

Five of the lawmakers sued, arguing that the wording of the 2022 ballot measure meant they were not disqualified from seeking reelection in 2024, but instead for the term after that.

The state's Supreme Court disagreed, citing how the ballot measure was explained to voters and how it was covered in the media.

"Reading the text of the amendment in light of the ballot title and the voters' pamphlet, voters would have understood the disqualification to apply to the term of office immediately following the term in which a legislator accrued 10 or more unexcused absences," the justices wrote.

"The language incorporated into the Oregon constitution was clear and yet the Supreme Court ruled that voter intent, which cannot be determined by any metric, supersedes the constitution," Sen. Daniel Bonham. "There is no justice in a political court."

Bonham was elected to four-year term in 2022 and will serve until 2027.

John DiLorenzo, a lawyer for the lawmakers who sued the secretary of state, said the court missed "a great opportunity to let initiative sponsors know that they should be careful how they draft their text."

"I would not be surprised if this decision comes back to haunt those who today will rely on it," he wrote in an email.

The Republicans who took part in the boycott said they were seeking to enforce a 1979 law requiring that state bills be written in simple language.

Democrats countered that their Republican colleagues objected to the contents of the bills, not their readability, which sought to allow children under the age of 14 to seek an abortion without parental consent and to raise the minimum age for gun purchases to 21, from 18.

Sen. Brian Boquist was another who tried to file for reelection but must instead end his tenure in January.

"We expect a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the federal case in February," Boquist wrote in a Thursday email to fellow Republicans. "The court has committed to rule before the primary election cutoff date. We appear to be the last remaining effort for which I will start looking for assistance to aid in the defense of constitutional rights."

Information from Reuters was used in this report.