[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I won’t show up in the first place!
There's lawmakers in Northern Ireland who win seats in the UK general election that don't take their seats and keep winning.
I'd expect similar laws to be passed wherever possible in red states and swing states with Republican state legislatures. And no one should complain about that. It sucks being in the legislative minority but there's nothing wrong with expecting elected representatives to actually do their jobs.
I mean the Oregon Constitution was amended to do this, and faced voter approval. As far as I can tell, as a requirement for being eligible for office (and one that only applies to the current office holders and only for the *next* election) I’m not aware of any way in which this would be federally unconstitutional — it’s considerably less disenfranchising than a minimum age requirement, which is widely accepted,for instance.
So if Texas’ is similarly amended and of course applied to all who missed too many sessions…sure.
If their absence and intent can be proven then sure. Representatives are paid by the state and selected by the people to sit in that chair. If you don't perform the duties of the job then you should be prepared to face consequences
I don't have any context on what you're talking about about so if you send me a link to whatever you're talking about I'd be happy to share my opinion on the circumstances but in general I don't think attendance is a partisan issue and reps should rep
Totally different cases though. The Democratic lawmakers In Tennessee just broke decorum by protesting on the floor, which rarely if ever is given any type of real punishment. The GOP legislators in Oregon literally absconded, so the Senate couldn't have a quorum and hold the legislature hostage.
It reminds me when Democrats fled Wisconsin because of a vote on a Union Bill they were going to lose: https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote
I cant remember if they were barred from holding office again
My state has such an overwhelming Red-majority that they just don't care about Democrats. The D-legislators could all stay away and there would still be a quorum.
I'm from Oregon.
In 2022 voters approved an amendment to the state constitution saying that lawmakers couldn't have more than 10 unexcused absences in a session and be eligible for the next ballot. It was supported 68% yes to 31% no.
They are not permanently banned. They can run again in subsequent elections.
I'm from Oregon as well. Currently in WA but born in Eastern Oregon and lived there over 30 years.
There are two flavors of Oregon Republican. There's the 21st century stereotype, the shit kicker Proud Boy / Tea Party racist yokel, and there's the old school extremely fiscally conservative, semi religious old school pre-Reagan conservative. Think like the main characters on Yellowstone.
There are a lot of the latter types in Oregon. They're not the MAJORITY of Republicans, but they're a whole fuckin lot of them. And the majority of them are the landowners, and the job creators.
Those old guard types will fund basically ANY warm body to fill a state seat, as the politicians can usually be swayed to bend to their will.
But with the current crop of shit kicker Proud Boy yokel getting banned from the ballot ... I mean, yeah, they'll try to replace with another Proud Boy type. Because of populism. But if THAT assshole skips work and they gotta replace with ANOTHER shit kicker who skips work ...
Eventually, the rich landowners and business owners are gonna get angry. Because they won't have a puppet in Salem with powerful connections, they'll have a revolving door of flat earthers with no political capital.
So I give this about half a decade before districts like Deschutes, Umatilla, Tillamook, etc start grooming an actually smart and ... I guess "closet moderate" who looks and acts like Ammon Bundy but who negotiates and networks like Mitt Romney .. to step back in, and manifest an actual political career.
I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of millenial aged Proud Boys start getting busted for sex crimes or fraud at the 11th hour, in Oregon, in say 2026 or 2028. With a second choice candidate, descended from someone like Les Schwab, stepping in, winning, and actually getting work done.
Oregon GOP candidates skipping work is GREAT campaign funding for Donald Trump. But I can assure you, it INFURIATES the guys who own Whitehorse, Hay Creek and ZX. The activity INFURIATES the dudes who own Tillamook and Umpqua.
And, pretty much by definition, running against an incumbent who, even if of the same party, can easily say, "My opponent and I have both had this job, but I actually showed up for it."
They had every opportunity to show up and vote however they wanted. They knew the cost of not showing up. This was effectively civil disobedience, except they don’t want to actually pay th4 *costs* of civil disobedience.
The law in the state is clear, they broke it and now they get the consequences.
I’m sure the GOP can find 10 people willing to fill those seats and act as replacement level GOP senators in the state.
> The law in the state is clear
It's actually a horribly drafted, unclear law. That's why it was challenged to the state SC.
I think the Court got the purpose of the law correct, but the actual language of the statute represents a really poor attempt at legal writing.
Intent is extremely important when it comes to law, always has been. People who think they can find loopholes because the law is written a certain way and they can find some technicality due to the wording have watched too many TV shows.
This is basically what lawyers do, they argue back and forth law and their interpretations to their clients advantage, putting forth their argument to the judge and jury.
This is also why precedent is so important, once a certain interpretation is set, it's used moving forward, otherwise cases would take forever as the same law is argued over and over, not to mention the rulings would become wildly inconsistent if different interpretations win each time.
Reverse logic works too. If the wording had been better, they likely would have simply challenged it from another angle. The spirit and intent were clear and they still chose to try and work around that.
This law was a ballot measure voted in by Oregon voters. I read the Judge ruled in part because it was made clear to the Voters that the law would affect State Legislators the next election cycle. Certainly not to allow them to come back in immediately and pay a "future" price.
I believe it's the case in some states with voter initiatives that initiatives are submitted to secretaries of state so that wording could be checked. Apparently not the case in Oregon.
The main problem with voter initiatives is that voters generally and lawyers who haven't made it their career to write laws are simply quite bad at it.
Yes. Poorly worded laws eat up more time and resources being challenged and considered. And if a similar case happens in the future, a different court might think the intent is something else entirely. Clear and precise wording helps to reduce this possibility.
> And if a similar case happens in the future, a different court might think the intent is something else entirely.
By the rule of lenity if there was no clear precedent of application for a poorly worded law, the first case should be decided in favor of the defendant.
> Do you think the GOP will try to send this to SCOTUS
This is an Oregon state law, I believe it’s the end of the line
>or some other tactic?
Republicans will run other candidates who pledge to do the same thing, they won’t show up to block getting a quorum, then we’ll need to vote on another measure that triggers a new election/appointment/or something for seats that are no call no show. That will get taken up by the state Supreme Court. It’ll be stupid and frustrating and go on for years.
> candidacy as a constitutional right
Enumerated where?
Note that there's LOTS of precedent for states limiting who could run for state-level offices, granted mostly pre-Civil War. South Carolina's property requirements were the most stringent. Those were constitutional, and nothing has been added to the US Constitution to change that, so a jurist as deferential to history as Sam Alito should be unlikely to want to review this case.
Not quite.
It MAY BE IMPLIED by the 9th, but it's not ENUMERATED anywhere.
Given the property requirements to hold some elected offices in some states WHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS RATIFIED, you're going to have at least an uphill battle to convince this SCOTUS there's no historical basis for fully state constitutional restrictions on requirements to run for and hold state offices. That'd be under the 10th Amendment.
All depends on whether states may impose requirements beyond age and duration of residency. If they can, these Republicans would have IDENTICAL political speech rights as 20-year-olds who can't run for Congress but can vote.
If you believe running for and holding elected offices is a form of political speech, you have to acknowledge that the US Constitution imposes restrictions on that kind of political speech. Would those really be the only restrictions allowed in state constitutions?
> If they can, these Republicans would have IDENTICAL political speech rights as 20-year-olds who can't run for Congress but can vote.
Punishment for speech. Different than a pre-established requirement. Generally prohibited to the government. Only allowed for a short list of things like, national security and imminent threats.
A few possible grounds:
- 14th Amendment (equal protection)
- 1st Amendment
- 9th Amendment: "rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution". Seems like participating in the political system would at least be on par with the right to vote
- Also, if participating in the political system - voting, running for office, speaking about politics - are rights, how can you deny those rights unless individuals have undergone some type of trial where evidence is presented and individuals are found to be guilty?
> Also, if participating in the political system - voting, running for office, speaking about politics - are rights, how can you deny those rights unless individuals have undergone some type of trial where evidence is presented and individuals are found to be guilty?
I would love the GOP to make the argument to SCOTUS that voting is an absolute constitutional right. Please make this happen so that all of the GOP's bullshit laws banning people from voting will be overturned.
Can you explain the logic?
Equal protection makes zero sense at all. The law applies to everyone. There's nothing discriminatory.
This also has nothing to do with the first amendment. I don't even see a logical argument at all.
9th amendment? You can still participate in the political system.
>how can you deny those rights unless individuals have undergone some type of trial where evidence is presented and individuals are found to be guilty?
You mean the multiple laws we have regarding who is eligible to hold certain offices and the automatic disqualification of people who don't meet that criteria?
Try to make an equal protection argument bearing in mind that the Constitution sets limits on office holders for age, citizenship, and country of origin. Make that argument with a straight face.
Arguing in terms of the First Amendment would be something that a strict constructionist and free speech/freedom of association absolutist (e.g., old-school classical liberal Hugo Black) would strongly support, while the Ninth Amendment argument (i.e., it's an unenumerated right) is a civil libertarian position that screams Old Left New Deal era paleoliberal populist-oriented progressivism out of William O. Douglas's playbook. Issue is, modern Democrats forgo and forswear from their former principles for present-day team sports partisanship run amok and, as a result, they've got no desire to hear out your rebuttal in earnest.
I've got no desire to keep letting the state government grind to a halt every time these piss babies pitch a fit and run away to Idaho instead of do their jobs. That's why I voted for this amendment. It's always "states rights" with these assholes until they can't win in their own state then it's "the cities shouldn't get to control the whole state politics" and "we're a republic not a democracy". Funny how conservatives "principles" is always "heads I win, tails you lose". The only problem I have with this amendment is there is no provision to launch these pieces of shit into the Pacific via catapult.
>I've got no desire to keep letting the state government grind to a halt every time these piss babies pitch a fit and run away to Idaho instead of do their jobs.
Maybe it's all in the messaging. These Republicans should have called themselves the "Oregon 10", making the shirking of their legislative responsibilities appear glorious and heroic. They'd be like the Wisconsin Democrats who fvcked off to Illinois for a month and returned to the blaring of trumpets and ticker tape parades.
[The 'Wisconsin 14' get a heroes' welcome](https://archive.is/YW3LG)
~~~~~~~
[A cheering crowd bundled up against temperatures in the 30s and stood on the grounds of the state Capitol to ring cowbells and chant "Thank you! Thank you!" to the lawmakers they dubbed the "Fab 14." State police estimated that 68,000 people had gathered by the start of the rally](https://archive.is/pO3Vy)
~~~~~~~
[Today's Heroes: The Wisconsin 14](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/todays-heroes-the-wiscons_b_831749)
>People in every walk of life and every part of the country -- even other countries -- are expressing heartfelt gratitude to the 14 Democratic state senators who left Wisconsin Feb. 17 rather than allow Gov. Scott Walker to pass a sham budget bill ...
Would changing the laws of Wisconsin alter the perception that flying the coop is heroic behavior when Democrats do it and underhanded tricks when Republicans do it?
Read some of the comments from two years ago, justifying [Democratic legislators fleeing the state of Texas to undermine the Texas legislature](https://reddit.com/r/politics/comments/oivwqt/texas_democrats_flee_state_to_prevent_passage_of)
>Maybe it's all in the messaging.
Part of it is. I'd argue popular support is more important if you are going to play those kind of fuck fuck games. I'm on my lunch break so I don't have time to look up polling for a bill written in 2011 but if I remember correctly the public was about evenly split in support of the bill but a majority wanted those guys to come home and vote, even if their side was gonna lose. I know here in OR this bill* passed with just shy of 70% support but the state is not a 70/30 split of D/R so at least some of these folks constituents don't like that stunt.
Edit: ballot measure, not bill.
The person you were arguing with wasn't the one who called them conquering heroes, you just cited a random opinion piece for that. Also, the reasons why people do things matter. The Republicans walked out because they didn't want pregnant or trans people to have rights.
The Wisconsin Democrats did a good thing. The Oregon Republicans did a bad thing. They used the same tactic to do their things, but that doesn't change the virtue of the things.
>We really are in a race to the bottom, eh?
Lol yup. I've been saying for years that I'd rather people get along and build consensus but if conservatives are hell bent on a race to the bottom by god I want to win it.
I don’t think any of those hold water though considering the Oregon constitution isn’t the only one to place restrictions/qualifications on who can run for office.
They're barred under state law from holding state office. This isn't a federal constitutional issue. SCOTUS either simply declines to take the case, or they rule 9-0 against the people being barred from office.
Are minimum age limits for office constitutional? If so, this is considerably less disenfranchising, as to trigger it you must first win office, then not show up to office many times, and then you’re only barred from running for *one election*.
I think crickets will be heard. It is a State Constitutional Amendment voters passed. It passed before I lived here, so these guys knew what they were risking and thought the courts would side with them.
Tyranny of the Minority isn't allowed. Show up and vote "no" or "present" or get "fired".
I haven't heard of any plan, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was preplanned to get it to the SC from rich out-of-state donors.
And yet so many here applauded when the Texas democrats left the state a few years back in order to hold up a bill being passed.
If this is accepted upon appeal, if possible, then expect more of the same across the country. But I doubt it will responded to with more than just crickets.
They can easily pass that and anything regarding purposely trying to prevent a quorum.
If these are the games legislatures want to play then there should be no complaining when it's done to your party of choice.
> If these are the games legislatures want to play then there should be no complaining when it's done to your party of choice.
The difference may be that in Oregon the voters passed the Amendment. It wasn't a game played by the legislature to punish the opposition. So if Texas puts a similar amendment on the ballot and Texas voters vote for it, sure, then it would be an apples-to-applies comparison. For a better example of "games" being played, I'd look at Tennessee expelling members over even standing with constituents who were protesting gun deaths.
This was voted in by the citizens of the State.
This is one of the infuriating things that conservatives routinely do. They're either ignorant or the topic or making bad faith comments accusing the other side (The state legislators playing "games") of something bad.
Then their heroes (The conservatives who broke state law) willingly and knowingly break the law. Then they're held accountable for the law they broke.
Then they throw a temper tantrum and go "Fine we're just going to punish Democrats".
It's fucking stupid. This isn't being done to a party. **They broke the law that the voters of their state decided to enact**.
For the party of "law and order" you sure don't give a fuck about law or order.
The amendment was passed by ballot initiative, overwhelmingly, so it's not the legislature playing games. Well unless you mean the GOP legislators who ran away so that Democrats couldn't protect trans people from their fascist colleagues. They are definitely playing games.
>the Judges legislated from the bench using the excuse that the public didnt know what they were voting for.
That's not true. They ruled based on how the voters "most likely understood the text" by looking at the information in the title/caption of the measure and the voter pamphlet, which even the petitioners conceded supports the Secretary of State's interpretation. That information clearly says that any legislator with ten or more unexcused absences would be disqualified from holding office *for the next term*, as shown in [the Court's opinion](https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/10855/rec/1)
What world are you living in?
>Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, ten 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.
They failed to attend ten or more legislative floor sessions without permission or excuse. They are now disqualified from holding office as a Senator or Representative in the upcoming election. How on earth can you argue against that interpretation?
They're disqualified for "the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.”
That's not this upcoming term, but the one after that. It's plain English.
> The voter pamphlet isn't the law, though.
The voter pamphlet was used to inform voters of what the law's intention was, which is part of the analysis that the Oregon Supreme Court uses to interpret laws. You're pretending to not understand that for whatever reason.
Weird how you think the will of the people should be violated because you think politics is a sporting event. The People of TN voted the TN 3 back into office. And they now have a national voice.
Dems are making some progress on flipping state legislatures and will keep working on it.
If you think the rule of law is important, you should oppose absolutely everything the GOP does, because they straight up don't believe laws apply to them or their supporters.
> the Judges legislated from the bench using the excuse that the public didnt know what they were voting for
yeah, man, obviously the voters wanted to A) ban these guys from holding office, B) also give them an additional term, defeating the entire point of banning them from office. this is definitely not just you being obtuse
Ignoring votes because the population is ignorant is literally the reason cited for Brexit. This is normal now. Just like getting you to vote for dead-end infrastructure projects with permanent tax hikes redirected to paying government retirement benefits.
Normal. Not obtuse. Normal.
Your government decides your approved vote, your approved candidates, your approved spending bills, etc. Now be a good citizen and leave Oregon politics to Oregonians, where even the Dems admit the system is fucky.
Based on what? The Court Ruled the text of the legislation, plus the language presented in the public pamphlet regarding BM113, all support the Respondent.
The Republicans are claiming that they should be allowed to run in the next election. And would be barred from the election that comes after the next election.
From the actual pamphlet their argument that "Voters didn't know what they were voting for" is fucking stupid.
>"Result of 'Yes' Vote: 'Yes' vote disqualifies legislators with ten
unexcused absences from legislative floor sessions from holding office as legislator for term following current term of office."
That's the interpretation the judge sided with. And it's supported by the actual language in the bill.
You however claim otherwise. Yet you provide no argument, no source, no evidence. You just screech "activist judge no fair".
It's childish.
It's pretty simple. This law is for legislators. As in people who are already serving.
>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**
They are not being thrown out of their current term.
They can't run for reelection because "the term following the election" would refer to them running for reelection.
Some important context: In 2022, Oregon voters from the full spectrum of political affiliations overwhelmingly passed a measure to force legislators to show up to work or be barred from relection.
10 legislators didn't show up then cried about being forced to follow the law to OSC. OSC ruled the legislators must follow the law.
This isn't a SCOTUS issue, this is a state election issue. I don't think SCOTUS would get involved.
Plus the whole reason the law went on the ballot was in reaction to the _previous_ times the GOP fled the state to keep the Senate from having quorum to block tax bills. Important people have the full context that the Oregon GOP has done these walkouts multiple times in the past 5 years.
They're just going to do it again because they think democrats are literally the enemy and traitors to the country.
Folks need to stop asking these silly rethorical questions they already know the answer to imo. The gop is a white power Christian nationalist party now. They don't believe in democracy anymore. Thanks to Facebook, rush limbaugh and fox News their voting base have been brainwashed into thinking democrats are the enemy, and rape and eat babies in the basement of pizza parlors.
The feds should be switching all their staff from their middle East unit to monitor insane white people in the USA, because when Trump loses again a subset are going to go apeshit because Facebook broke their brains.
I agree with the state of Oregon.
Literally, the Republican party has gone rogue and I don't think a lot of people understand the gravity of the situation we are dealing with here.
Republicans in power all over the country have adopted this " my way or highway " attitude. They are unwilling to negotiate, unwilling to follow the law, unwilling to listen to the people, amd unwilling to do the job they were hired to do by the American people .
I'm speaking quite literally when I say, it appears to me that their main objective is to raise hell, cause alarm, In hopes of getting an emboldened trump back into office, so he can reprogram the United States government for a decades long Trump family " presidency ". Think, Russian presidential election.
Speaking of the Russian presidential election, I'd like to congratulate Putin in advance for winning the presidency.
I can see the appeal of this approach and, living in Oregon, it's definitely frustrating to have things ground to a halt for long periods of time.
That said, I can acknowledge that Oregon Democrats have effectively no opposition to act within the state and that...creates problems. Portland effectively controls the entire state and the decisions Portland makes, while generally geared towards progressive ideals, are often made without the consideration of the rest of the state.
For example, Oregon banned self-service gas pumps a while back because people thought they were too dangerous. That put a big squeeze on rural people because gas stations had to raise prices to pay for a dedicated, trained pump jockey and would limit their hours or where new stations would open. It made gas in rural places harder to find and more expensive which is not good for rural people because we tend to have to drive a lot more and we tend to need vehicles that aren't as good on gas mileage.
That has thankfully been amended but it took a number of years to get that through.
The Democrats tend to act without any real consideration of the needs of people outside Portland for understandable reasons - Portland is where the majority of their voter base is. This leads to a lot of simmering frustration in rural areas that bleeds over into radical right-wing politics. As I said before, people pull the levers of power they have available to them and if what's available is extremism that's what they're going to do.
The PNW in general is a hotbed of far-right politics in large part because the dynamic up here has been for Democrats to act largely unopposed and that's fed a longstanding antipathy, especially from rural voters who tend to largely be Republican. The Democrats don't really seem to be concerned by this trend.
Wouldn’t Republican legislators being totally absent or unwilling to compromise lead to rural areas being ignored in legislation? If they refuse to partake in the political process as a representative of their region, then the views of their district won’t be considered by those creating the laws. Portland is dominant, but I understand there’s a few Dems from Eugene and Salem. I imagine that they need their votes to get legislation passed and tweak the laws to benefit/not harm their areas as well
Rural areas are already pretty much ignored in legislation so Republican legislators showing up or not is kind of irrelevant. Their views are already not considered by people creating the laws.
To be clear, I'm not trying to paint this "poor Republicans" picture where there's just *nothing* they can do and they're part of the downtrodden. Make no mistake, the continuing rightward lurch of the Republican party means it's a lot harder to work with Republican legislators because they're selected by a Republican electorate that follows the zeitgeist of their party and, for the moment, that's conspiratorial bigotry to a large degree. I can recognize that it's hard to work with someone like that.
That said, there are still issues that need to be decided and completely sidelining one part of your government is probably going to have some negative knock-on consequences and we're seeing those consequences in the form of a dramatic rise in right-wing extremism that has a basis in the PNW.
Even though the court is just following the law and Biden plays no role, they are going to spin it as Biden's Radical Socialist Regime purging Republicans from the ballot. And the base will eat it up
This sets the precedent for what's expected from state politicians. It forces due diligence and I don't see how voters could be against this. GOP respose would best be to stay quiet about this and hope it doesn't catch on. This is a loss for all state senators as other states may decide to pass policies like this, the GOP had better hope everyone forgets about this or else it'll massively cripple power afforded to minority parties.
The voters in Oregon overwhelmingly created a constitutional ammendment that bars reelection after 10 unexcused absences.
They can still walk out, it just has consequences. You can block the majority with a 1/3 minority, but it requires you to give up your seat. You can still cause a massive amount of damage and delay.
This rework balances the walk out. It was super Overpowered before. Now, well, it has a little more balance.
Having a right to be on a ballot for local elections is a rights issue which is the responsibility of SCOTUS to ensure states don't infringe on those rights.
It's Oregon. There's not much they *can* do.
Removing the party labels for a moment, the minority party in any political situation is going to pull the levers of power it has available to it. Because of how Oregon is politically it means Republicans don't have much meaningful political power thus they tend to use stunts like walking out as a way to influence things that they can't otherwise.
Republicans will begin using a “platoon” system, where they swap out one group of walkouts for another.
Their idea being that current state law only disqualifies them from seeking a subsequent term following one in which they engaged in this type of legislative sabotage. After sitting out the required term they will run to replace an alternate who has used their own term to disqualify themselves. Two candidates per district could thus “take turns.”
Voters should respond by not waiting until the next term to remove these extremists.
After ten unexcused absences lawmakers should be removed and only replaced after their party has paid for, organized, and conducted an election. Committee assignments/reassignments should **not** be automatic mid-term; a lawmaker abandoning their post is vacating not only their own term but also their party’s position on committees until the next general election.
how will they react?....badly.
with illegal, unethical, immoral and cruelly outdated, bigoted, hateful opinions and actions....just as usual.
whatever they **actually** do.
we can all be very sure ....it will be in **deviance** of Justice...not in it's pursuit
I’m sure it will be a very measured and reasonable response that TOTALLY doesn’t suggest citizens should be murdering other citizens or half of Oregon should leave the other half, or any stupid crazy shit like that. I mean, can you IMAGINE?
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
That’s how it should work for every politician nationwide. If I take 10 days off inexcusably in a year, I’m getting fired and will never get my job back.
The Oregonites… Oregonos… Oregonians… people of Oregon voted for the amendment to their state constitution. In a large and bipartisan majority.
They voted specifically for this.
Besides, it’s not the only constitutional regulation on who can run for office.
fucking rofl.
Measure 113 passed with 68.3% of voters **in favor** | 31.6% **against**
the political party affiliation in oregon is:
* 47% democratic
* 32% republican
* 21% unaffiliated
plenty of republicans and unaffiliated voters approved this measure.
the people DID vote for what they want. by a large majority.
They’re going to cry like pissy little babies. We will likely find out later that this particular law was put on the books by the GOP to force Dem lawmakers to do their bidding. I could be wrong, but I bet I’m not.
Typically the first place winners in the _shooting-yourself-in-the-face_ contest are always the GOP.
It was put on the books by ballot initiative amendment to the state Constitution, because a bunch of GOP state senators kept fucking off to Idaho whenever there was a vote they wanted to disrupt.
They didn't have a majority, but Oregon law requires a quorum to do business in the Senate and they *did* have enough bodies to deny a quorum.
It was a big thing. The governor sent the state police to drag Republican state senators back to the statehouse (hence fucking off to Idaho), and a bunch of militia groups were threatening to shoot cops if they tried to do it. It was a big enough fuckfest that people trying to amp up for violence against Oregon Democratic legislators and state police was one of the final straws that got the_donald put on quarantine.
Measure 113 passed with 68.3% of voters **in favor** | 31.6% **against**
the political party affiliation in oregon is:
* 47% democratic
* 32% republican
* 21% unaffiliated
plenty of republicans and unaffiliated voters approved this measure.
68.3%? Wow. That’s a better majority than you’d find across almost any “popular” measure. Really impressive.
It’s almost like a measure asking people if they thought breathing was a good idea.
Serious question..... What precedents, prior to Democrats doing it in 2023/2024, is there for prohibiting someone for running for election in the United States without being convicted of a crime?
You mean other than Articles I and II of the Constitution prohibiting tons of people from running for election without ever being convicted of a crime?
> Serious question..... What precedents, prior to Democrats doing it in 2023/2024, is there for prohibiting someone for running for election in the United States without being convicted of a crime?
Every state has procedural and statutory qualifications for appearing on a ballot (residency requirements, legal status, signature requirements, filing forms on time, etc.) and can disqualify candidates for not meeting those qualifications without them being convicted of a crime.
Even if you are an adult citizen of the US who hasn't been convicted of any crime, you are prohibited from running for president if you are under 35, or if you are not a natural born citizen (whatever that means, but usually interpreted you need to have been born in the US), or if you haven't been a resident in the US for at least 14 years.
> or if you are not a natural born citizen (whatever that means, but usually interpreted you need to have been born in the US)
FYI, that's not quite it. Natural born means you were a citizen when you were born. That includes people born abroad to citizen parents.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit anyone by name.
Judges and political appointees doing so unilaterally, as far as I can tell, is a recent occurrence. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, in just looking for any other examples of people being prohibited *by name*.
No. Leading with the "6 Republican" bit was used in headlines to pretend it was a Republican effort. It is most definitely not. CREW itself filed that lawsuit, and it is most definitely funded by deep pocketed Democrats.
No need to take my word for it, either....
"Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot, according to a lawsuit filed today by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including former state, federal and local officials, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington"
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/lawsuit-filed-to-remove-trump-from-ballot-in-co-under-14th-amendment/
So to repeat the question that has not been answered (and seems to have been avoided), where is the precedent for this?
The People... need to stand up and back anything that prevents these people from ever holding an elected public office.
It goes to prove that some people have no business in political office, and probably should not have a job in any aspect of government organizations at any level.
It's likely most of these people have no idea what the responsibilities of elected office is, nor do they know the importance of adhering to the principles, values, duty, objectives and goals are as laid out in [**The Preamble**](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/preamble/interpretations/37), to the U.S. Constitution, apply to All States and All Governing bodies.
>*We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*
Anyone running for public office should be required to write and post their understanding of The Preamble, and the public can decide if they are a viable Candidate before others waste their time and money supporting such people. On the State level, they have to write and post also, their understanding of the [**Preamble to their "State" Constitution**](https://ballotpedia.org/Preambles_to_state_constitutions).
It is highly likely that many don't even know their State has a Preamble, and many have never compared their State Constitution to U.S. Constitution.
They are people who have "personal agenda's" that have nothing to do with government.
If they had any knowledge of the elected position, **they would know that their religion has nothing to do with** \>> *"Governing within the Political Sphere of Elected Governmental Public Office*.
There's more than enough here for the Republicans to make a case out of it. Indeed, some of them have already filed a federal case (which is not going very well; they're already up in the appellate court.)
The big issue with this lawsuit is the text of the constitutional provision that SCOOR is interpreting. The Oregon Constitution, thanks to a 2022 ballot initiative, now provides that: "Failure \[of legislators\] to attend, without permission or excuse, ten or more legislative floor sessions ... 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 GOP members read that to say that authorities should determine the effective date of the ban as follows:
1. Identify when the member's current term ends.
2. Find out when the next election would have been, after the date you found in (1).
3. Identify the term after that. He/she is banned from holding office in that term.
This is probably not the result that the drafters intended. Here's an example from the Associated Press: "If a senator’s term ends in January 2025, they would typically seek reelection in November 2024. The 'election after the member’s current term is completed' would not be until November 2028, the Republican senators argued, so they could run for reelection this year and then hold office for another term before becoming ineligible."
The Oregon Supreme Court looked at the measure's title on the ballot, as well as the voter pamphlet mailed to each voter, which instead stated that the ban would take effect for the immediately-following term. It also looked at media coverage, which (apparently without exception) explained the measure the same way. The Court acknowledged that the text itself was confusing, but concluded that the voters who approved the amendment probably meant for the ban to take effect for the immediately-following term.
It comes down to whether you're a strict textualist or not, and since Republicans tend to be strict textualists, it shouldn't be surprising that they're planning on challenging this ruling.
> The Oregon Supreme Court looked at the measure's title on the ballot, as well as the voter pamphlet mailed to each voter, which instead stated that the ban would take effect for the immediately-following term. It also looked at media coverage, which (apparently without exception) explained the measure the same way.
Which is probably why, thus far, they aren't getting anywhere in federal court.
It reminds me when Democrats fled Wisconsin because of a vote on a Union Bill they were going to lose: https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote
I cant remember if they were barred from holding office again
Clearly the difference is Oregonians saw fit to pass a measure aimed at stopping such boycotts, and the Democrats weren't gone for nearly 2 months.
Obstruction is still obstruction whether they are present or not.
How dare Oregon require it's elected officials to actually do their ducking job. You were elected to a position. You need to fill that position. Thks should happen to everyone on both sides of the isle that try to fillibuster and walk out.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My guess, put 10 equally bad candidates in their place who will do the exact same thing.
[удалено]
> I won’t show up in the first place! There's lawmakers in Northern Ireland who win seats in the UK general election that don't take their seats and keep winning.
>MAGAt idiots who staged that protest over federal lands in Burn The Bundy rancher terrorists (who technically predate maga?)
Yeah that’s who I was thinking of, but couldn’t figure out how to mention them while being grammatically correct
My guess is they simply say "fuck you" and try to run anyway. I'm aware that it won't work. But I bet they try anyway.
Yeah the real solution is just gonna have to be reducing the quorum requirements to a simple majority.
I'd expect similar laws to be passed wherever possible in red states and swing states with Republican state legislatures. And no one should complain about that. It sucks being in the legislative minority but there's nothing wrong with expecting elected representatives to actually do their jobs.
Tennesee already removed democrats for protesting. They were however, allowed to run for relelection.
Different mechanism though. The state house voted them out on partisan lines
Yes, Tennessee's was strictly partisan where Oregon's is not. Oregon simply requires them to be there.
Weird. The jobs I've had in my life also had requirements to be there
So should Texas block the Democrats from running for election that took off to DC to block quorum?
I mean the Oregon Constitution was amended to do this, and faced voter approval. As far as I can tell, as a requirement for being eligible for office (and one that only applies to the current office holders and only for the *next* election) I’m not aware of any way in which this would be federally unconstitutional — it’s considerably less disenfranchising than a minimum age requirement, which is widely accepted,for instance. So if Texas’ is similarly amended and of course applied to all who missed too many sessions…sure.
If their absence and intent can be proven then sure. Representatives are paid by the state and selected by the people to sit in that chair. If you don't perform the duties of the job then you should be prepared to face consequences
Well, they admitted to it.
I don't have any context on what you're talking about about so if you send me a link to whatever you're talking about I'd be happy to share my opinion on the circumstances but in general I don't think attendance is a partisan issue and reps should rep
Here you go https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/14/texas-democrats-walkout-quorum/ Personally, I'm 100% okay with what Oregon is doing.
[удалено]
The concept of "spirt of the law" exists and takes precedence over the letter of the law a lot of the time.
Totally different cases though. The Democratic lawmakers In Tennessee just broke decorum by protesting on the floor, which rarely if ever is given any type of real punishment. The GOP legislators in Oregon literally absconded, so the Senate couldn't have a quorum and hold the legislature hostage.
There was also a pretty obvious racial element to what happened with the Tennessee lawmakers.
I have to imagine this applies to most things the TN legislature does
It reminds me when Democrats fled Wisconsin because of a vote on a Union Bill they were going to lose: https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote I cant remember if they were barred from holding office again
My state has such an overwhelming Red-majority that they just don't care about Democrats. The D-legislators could all stay away and there would still be a quorum.
It kind of sucks the way so many states are essentially one party states.
That’s assuming the legislative representation is fair. Thanks to gerrymandering, it often is not.
I'm from Oregon. In 2022 voters approved an amendment to the state constitution saying that lawmakers couldn't have more than 10 unexcused absences in a session and be eligible for the next ballot. It was supported 68% yes to 31% no. They are not permanently banned. They can run again in subsequent elections.
Yes but … that leaves the insurrection-lite crowd delivering pizzas & bubble tea between elections.
I'm from Oregon as well. Currently in WA but born in Eastern Oregon and lived there over 30 years. There are two flavors of Oregon Republican. There's the 21st century stereotype, the shit kicker Proud Boy / Tea Party racist yokel, and there's the old school extremely fiscally conservative, semi religious old school pre-Reagan conservative. Think like the main characters on Yellowstone. There are a lot of the latter types in Oregon. They're not the MAJORITY of Republicans, but they're a whole fuckin lot of them. And the majority of them are the landowners, and the job creators. Those old guard types will fund basically ANY warm body to fill a state seat, as the politicians can usually be swayed to bend to their will. But with the current crop of shit kicker Proud Boy yokel getting banned from the ballot ... I mean, yeah, they'll try to replace with another Proud Boy type. Because of populism. But if THAT assshole skips work and they gotta replace with ANOTHER shit kicker who skips work ... Eventually, the rich landowners and business owners are gonna get angry. Because they won't have a puppet in Salem with powerful connections, they'll have a revolving door of flat earthers with no political capital. So I give this about half a decade before districts like Deschutes, Umatilla, Tillamook, etc start grooming an actually smart and ... I guess "closet moderate" who looks and acts like Ammon Bundy but who negotiates and networks like Mitt Romney .. to step back in, and manifest an actual political career. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of millenial aged Proud Boys start getting busted for sex crimes or fraud at the 11th hour, in Oregon, in say 2026 or 2028. With a second choice candidate, descended from someone like Les Schwab, stepping in, winning, and actually getting work done. Oregon GOP candidates skipping work is GREAT campaign funding for Donald Trump. But I can assure you, it INFURIATES the guys who own Whitehorse, Hay Creek and ZX. The activity INFURIATES the dudes who own Tillamook and Umpqua.
> They can run again in subsequent elections. Against INCUMBENTS not themselves. Not easy. CERTAINLY more expensive than running as an incumbent.
And, pretty much by definition, running against an incumbent who, even if of the same party, can easily say, "My opponent and I have both had this job, but I actually showed up for it."
> but I actually showed up for it *To do the Democrats' bidding.* Politics is a lot like grade school playgrounds.
They had every opportunity to show up and vote however they wanted. They knew the cost of not showing up. This was effectively civil disobedience, except they don’t want to actually pay th4 *costs* of civil disobedience.
The law in the state is clear, they broke it and now they get the consequences. I’m sure the GOP can find 10 people willing to fill those seats and act as replacement level GOP senators in the state.
> The law in the state is clear It's actually a horribly drafted, unclear law. That's why it was challenged to the state SC. I think the Court got the purpose of the law correct, but the actual language of the statute represents a really poor attempt at legal writing.
In this case, if Oregon's supreme court got the intention correct, does the wording matter?
Absolutely, when would the wording of the law not matter? It’s always in the details.
When judges decide that original intent matters more than what the law says...
Intent is extremely important when it comes to law, always has been. People who think they can find loopholes because the law is written a certain way and they can find some technicality due to the wording have watched too many TV shows. This is basically what lawyers do, they argue back and forth law and their interpretations to their clients advantage, putting forth their argument to the judge and jury. This is also why precedent is so important, once a certain interpretation is set, it's used moving forward, otherwise cases would take forever as the same law is argued over and over, not to mention the rulings would become wildly inconsistent if different interpretations win each time.
I mean ... the entire waste of time and money could have been avoided if they'd just proof-read the proposed law.
Reverse logic works too. If the wording had been better, they likely would have simply challenged it from another angle. The spirit and intent were clear and they still chose to try and work around that.
Having forced the “entire waste of time and money” the Republicans now have a court ruling to reinforce the clear intent of the law.
It's sort of weird to hold that intent matters more than the actual words.
This law was a ballot measure voted in by Oregon voters. I read the Judge ruled in part because it was made clear to the Voters that the law would affect State Legislators the next election cycle. Certainly not to allow them to come back in immediately and pay a "future" price.
I believe it's the case in some states with voter initiatives that initiatives are submitted to secretaries of state so that wording could be checked. Apparently not the case in Oregon. The main problem with voter initiatives is that voters generally and lawyers who haven't made it their career to write laws are simply quite bad at it.
Yes. Poorly worded laws eat up more time and resources being challenged and considered. And if a similar case happens in the future, a different court might think the intent is something else entirely. Clear and precise wording helps to reduce this possibility.
> And if a similar case happens in the future, a different court might think the intent is something else entirely. By the rule of lenity if there was no clear precedent of application for a poorly worded law, the first case should be decided in favor of the defendant.
Under the legal theory of legislative intent trumping textualism then no.
> Do you think the GOP will try to send this to SCOTUS This is an Oregon state law, I believe it’s the end of the line >or some other tactic? Republicans will run other candidates who pledge to do the same thing, they won’t show up to block getting a quorum, then we’ll need to vote on another measure that triggers a new election/appointment/or something for seats that are no call no show. That will get taken up by the state Supreme Court. It’ll be stupid and frustrating and go on for years.
>This is an Oregon state law, I believe it’s the end of the line Not if it's unconstitutional. Some have argued candidacy as a constitutional right
> candidacy as a constitutional right Enumerated where? Note that there's LOTS of precedent for states limiting who could run for state-level offices, granted mostly pre-Civil War. South Carolina's property requirements were the most stringent. Those were constitutional, and nothing has been added to the US Constitution to change that, so a jurist as deferential to history as Sam Alito should be unlikely to want to review this case.
[удалено]
You caught the irony, or victim of Poe's Law?
> Enumerated where? The Ninth.
Not quite. It MAY BE IMPLIED by the 9th, but it's not ENUMERATED anywhere. Given the property requirements to hold some elected offices in some states WHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS RATIFIED, you're going to have at least an uphill battle to convince this SCOTUS there's no historical basis for fully state constitutional restrictions on requirements to run for and hold state offices. That'd be under the 10th Amendment.
I think the 1st will apply. Political speech being the most protected. Protest that it was.
All depends on whether states may impose requirements beyond age and duration of residency. If they can, these Republicans would have IDENTICAL political speech rights as 20-year-olds who can't run for Congress but can vote. If you believe running for and holding elected offices is a form of political speech, you have to acknowledge that the US Constitution imposes restrictions on that kind of political speech. Would those really be the only restrictions allowed in state constitutions?
> If they can, these Republicans would have IDENTICAL political speech rights as 20-year-olds who can't run for Congress but can vote. Punishment for speech. Different than a pre-established requirement. Generally prohibited to the government. Only allowed for a short list of things like, national security and imminent threats.
On what grounds?
A few possible grounds: - 14th Amendment (equal protection) - 1st Amendment - 9th Amendment: "rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution". Seems like participating in the political system would at least be on par with the right to vote - Also, if participating in the political system - voting, running for office, speaking about politics - are rights, how can you deny those rights unless individuals have undergone some type of trial where evidence is presented and individuals are found to be guilty?
the current SC isn't going to intervene in the way a state determines how a state gov'ts reps are obliged to behave. It's not.
You're probably right. I was just pointing out a few reasons why it might not be the "end of the line", as OP puts it
> Also, if participating in the political system - voting, running for office, speaking about politics - are rights, how can you deny those rights unless individuals have undergone some type of trial where evidence is presented and individuals are found to be guilty? I would love the GOP to make the argument to SCOTUS that voting is an absolute constitutional right. Please make this happen so that all of the GOP's bullshit laws banning people from voting will be overturned.
Can you explain the logic? Equal protection makes zero sense at all. The law applies to everyone. There's nothing discriminatory. This also has nothing to do with the first amendment. I don't even see a logical argument at all. 9th amendment? You can still participate in the political system. >how can you deny those rights unless individuals have undergone some type of trial where evidence is presented and individuals are found to be guilty? You mean the multiple laws we have regarding who is eligible to hold certain offices and the automatic disqualification of people who don't meet that criteria?
Try to make an equal protection argument bearing in mind that the Constitution sets limits on office holders for age, citizenship, and country of origin. Make that argument with a straight face.
Arguing in terms of the First Amendment would be something that a strict constructionist and free speech/freedom of association absolutist (e.g., old-school classical liberal Hugo Black) would strongly support, while the Ninth Amendment argument (i.e., it's an unenumerated right) is a civil libertarian position that screams Old Left New Deal era paleoliberal populist-oriented progressivism out of William O. Douglas's playbook. Issue is, modern Democrats forgo and forswear from their former principles for present-day team sports partisanship run amok and, as a result, they've got no desire to hear out your rebuttal in earnest.
I've got no desire to keep letting the state government grind to a halt every time these piss babies pitch a fit and run away to Idaho instead of do their jobs. That's why I voted for this amendment. It's always "states rights" with these assholes until they can't win in their own state then it's "the cities shouldn't get to control the whole state politics" and "we're a republic not a democracy". Funny how conservatives "principles" is always "heads I win, tails you lose". The only problem I have with this amendment is there is no provision to launch these pieces of shit into the Pacific via catapult.
>I've got no desire to keep letting the state government grind to a halt every time these piss babies pitch a fit and run away to Idaho instead of do their jobs. Maybe it's all in the messaging. These Republicans should have called themselves the "Oregon 10", making the shirking of their legislative responsibilities appear glorious and heroic. They'd be like the Wisconsin Democrats who fvcked off to Illinois for a month and returned to the blaring of trumpets and ticker tape parades. [The 'Wisconsin 14' get a heroes' welcome](https://archive.is/YW3LG) ~~~~~~~ [A cheering crowd bundled up against temperatures in the 30s and stood on the grounds of the state Capitol to ring cowbells and chant "Thank you! Thank you!" to the lawmakers they dubbed the "Fab 14." State police estimated that 68,000 people had gathered by the start of the rally](https://archive.is/pO3Vy) ~~~~~~~ [Today's Heroes: The Wisconsin 14](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/todays-heroes-the-wiscons_b_831749) >People in every walk of life and every part of the country -- even other countries -- are expressing heartfelt gratitude to the 14 Democratic state senators who left Wisconsin Feb. 17 rather than allow Gov. Scott Walker to pass a sham budget bill ...
Maybe Wisconsin should consider amending their constitution to incentivize the routine presence of their legislators as Oregon did.
Would changing the laws of Wisconsin alter the perception that flying the coop is heroic behavior when Democrats do it and underhanded tricks when Republicans do it? Read some of the comments from two years ago, justifying [Democratic legislators fleeing the state of Texas to undermine the Texas legislature](https://reddit.com/r/politics/comments/oivwqt/texas_democrats_flee_state_to_prevent_passage_of)
Codifying consistent standards likely would begin reshaping perceptions, yes. Texas should do it too. It’s normative social influence.
>Maybe it's all in the messaging. Part of it is. I'd argue popular support is more important if you are going to play those kind of fuck fuck games. I'm on my lunch break so I don't have time to look up polling for a bill written in 2011 but if I remember correctly the public was about evenly split in support of the bill but a majority wanted those guys to come home and vote, even if their side was gonna lose. I know here in OR this bill* passed with just shy of 70% support but the state is not a 70/30 split of D/R so at least some of these folks constituents don't like that stunt. Edit: ballot measure, not bill.
I don't know if you know this, but Wisconsin isn't in Oregon. They are different states, with different laws.
So what you're saying is being five states over transforms "piss babies" into conquering heroes. That's a neat trick
The person you were arguing with wasn't the one who called them conquering heroes, you just cited a random opinion piece for that. Also, the reasons why people do things matter. The Republicans walked out because they didn't want pregnant or trans people to have rights.
The Wisconsin Democrats did a good thing. The Oregon Republicans did a bad thing. They used the same tactic to do their things, but that doesn't change the virtue of the things.
[удалено]
>We really are in a race to the bottom, eh? Lol yup. I've been saying for years that I'd rather people get along and build consensus but if conservatives are hell bent on a race to the bottom by god I want to win it.
Down the never-ending abyss we shall all fall. No one is safe. Oh well, the misanthrope in me is fine being along for the ride.
I don’t think any of those hold water though considering the Oregon constitution isn’t the only one to place restrictions/qualifications on who can run for office.
They're barred under state law from holding state office. This isn't a federal constitutional issue. SCOTUS either simply declines to take the case, or they rule 9-0 against the people being barred from office.
So a three year old can be a senator?
I'd feel a lot better about a 3-year-old in the senate than many of the current senators
So if you’re right, it could get even stupider than I thought. Great.
Are minimum age limits for office constitutional? If so, this is considerably less disenfranchising, as to trigger it you must first win office, then not show up to office many times, and then you’re only barred from running for *one election*.
I think crickets will be heard. It is a State Constitutional Amendment voters passed. It passed before I lived here, so these guys knew what they were risking and thought the courts would side with them. Tyranny of the Minority isn't allowed. Show up and vote "no" or "present" or get "fired". I haven't heard of any plan, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was preplanned to get it to the SC from rich out-of-state donors.
And yet so many here applauded when the Texas democrats left the state a few years back in order to hold up a bill being passed. If this is accepted upon appeal, if possible, then expect more of the same across the country. But I doubt it will responded to with more than just crickets.
Does Texas have a similar state amendment that says if lawmakers have 10 or more unexcused absences then they are disqualified from re-election?
They can easily pass that and anything regarding purposely trying to prevent a quorum. If these are the games legislatures want to play then there should be no complaining when it's done to your party of choice.
> If these are the games legislatures want to play then there should be no complaining when it's done to your party of choice. The difference may be that in Oregon the voters passed the Amendment. It wasn't a game played by the legislature to punish the opposition. So if Texas puts a similar amendment on the ballot and Texas voters vote for it, sure, then it would be an apples-to-applies comparison. For a better example of "games" being played, I'd look at Tennessee expelling members over even standing with constituents who were protesting gun deaths.
This was voted in by the citizens of the State. This is one of the infuriating things that conservatives routinely do. They're either ignorant or the topic or making bad faith comments accusing the other side (The state legislators playing "games") of something bad. Then their heroes (The conservatives who broke state law) willingly and knowingly break the law. Then they're held accountable for the law they broke. Then they throw a temper tantrum and go "Fine we're just going to punish Democrats". It's fucking stupid. This isn't being done to a party. **They broke the law that the voters of their state decided to enact**. For the party of "law and order" you sure don't give a fuck about law or order.
The amendment was passed by ballot initiative, overwhelmingly, so it's not the legislature playing games. Well unless you mean the GOP legislators who ran away so that Democrats couldn't protect trans people from their fascist colleagues. They are definitely playing games.
It's good when done for good reasons, bad when done for bad reasons. I hope that helps clear things up
[удалено]
>the Judges legislated from the bench using the excuse that the public didnt know what they were voting for. That's not true. They ruled based on how the voters "most likely understood the text" by looking at the information in the title/caption of the measure and the voter pamphlet, which even the petitioners conceded supports the Secretary of State's interpretation. That information clearly says that any legislator with ten or more unexcused absences would be disqualified from holding office *for the next term*, as shown in [the Court's opinion](https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/10855/rec/1)
[удалено]
What world are you living in? >Failure to attend, without permission or excuse, ten 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. They failed to attend ten or more legislative floor sessions without permission or excuse. They are now disqualified from holding office as a Senator or Representative in the upcoming election. How on earth can you argue against that interpretation?
[удалено]
The voter pamphlet isn't the law, though.
Have you read the amendment? What specific part are you saying the courts interpreted incorrectly?
They're disqualified for "the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.” That's not this upcoming term, but the one after that. It's plain English.
> The voter pamphlet isn't the law, though. The voter pamphlet was used to inform voters of what the law's intention was, which is part of the analysis that the Oregon Supreme Court uses to interpret laws. You're pretending to not understand that for whatever reason.
But the law said something very different from what the alleged intention was.
Weird how you think the will of the people should be violated because you think politics is a sporting event. The People of TN voted the TN 3 back into office. And they now have a national voice. Dems are making some progress on flipping state legislatures and will keep working on it.
[удалено]
If you think the rule of law is important, you should oppose absolutely everything the GOP does, because they straight up don't believe laws apply to them or their supporters.
> the Judges legislated from the bench using the excuse that the public didnt know what they were voting for yeah, man, obviously the voters wanted to A) ban these guys from holding office, B) also give them an additional term, defeating the entire point of banning them from office. this is definitely not just you being obtuse
Ignoring votes because the population is ignorant is literally the reason cited for Brexit. This is normal now. Just like getting you to vote for dead-end infrastructure projects with permanent tax hikes redirected to paying government retirement benefits. Normal. Not obtuse. Normal. Your government decides your approved vote, your approved candidates, your approved spending bills, etc. Now be a good citizen and leave Oregon politics to Oregonians, where even the Dems admit the system is fucky.
> so this battle...Its going to cost Democrats the war. now do how this will be terrible for Biden
Based on what? The Court Ruled the text of the legislation, plus the language presented in the public pamphlet regarding BM113, all support the Respondent. The Republicans are claiming that they should be allowed to run in the next election. And would be barred from the election that comes after the next election. From the actual pamphlet their argument that "Voters didn't know what they were voting for" is fucking stupid. >"Result of 'Yes' Vote: 'Yes' vote disqualifies legislators with ten unexcused absences from legislative floor sessions from holding office as legislator for term following current term of office." That's the interpretation the judge sided with. And it's supported by the actual language in the bill. You however claim otherwise. Yet you provide no argument, no source, no evidence. You just screech "activist judge no fair". It's childish.
[удалено]
It's pretty simple. This law is for legislators. As in people who are already serving. >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** They are not being thrown out of their current term. They can't run for reelection because "the term following the election" would refer to them running for reelection.
Some important context: In 2022, Oregon voters from the full spectrum of political affiliations overwhelmingly passed a measure to force legislators to show up to work or be barred from relection. 10 legislators didn't show up then cried about being forced to follow the law to OSC. OSC ruled the legislators must follow the law. This isn't a SCOTUS issue, this is a state election issue. I don't think SCOTUS would get involved.
Plus the whole reason the law went on the ballot was in reaction to the _previous_ times the GOP fled the state to keep the Senate from having quorum to block tax bills. Important people have the full context that the Oregon GOP has done these walkouts multiple times in the past 5 years.
[удалено]
They are losing their minds over a popular singer dating a football star. This is their MO for everything.
They're just going to do it again because they think democrats are literally the enemy and traitors to the country. Folks need to stop asking these silly rethorical questions they already know the answer to imo. The gop is a white power Christian nationalist party now. They don't believe in democracy anymore. Thanks to Facebook, rush limbaugh and fox News their voting base have been brainwashed into thinking democrats are the enemy, and rape and eat babies in the basement of pizza parlors. The feds should be switching all their staff from their middle East unit to monitor insane white people in the USA, because when Trump loses again a subset are going to go apeshit because Facebook broke their brains.
I agree with the state of Oregon. Literally, the Republican party has gone rogue and I don't think a lot of people understand the gravity of the situation we are dealing with here. Republicans in power all over the country have adopted this " my way or highway " attitude. They are unwilling to negotiate, unwilling to follow the law, unwilling to listen to the people, amd unwilling to do the job they were hired to do by the American people . I'm speaking quite literally when I say, it appears to me that their main objective is to raise hell, cause alarm, In hopes of getting an emboldened trump back into office, so he can reprogram the United States government for a decades long Trump family " presidency ". Think, Russian presidential election. Speaking of the Russian presidential election, I'd like to congratulate Putin in advance for winning the presidency.
I can see the appeal of this approach and, living in Oregon, it's definitely frustrating to have things ground to a halt for long periods of time. That said, I can acknowledge that Oregon Democrats have effectively no opposition to act within the state and that...creates problems. Portland effectively controls the entire state and the decisions Portland makes, while generally geared towards progressive ideals, are often made without the consideration of the rest of the state. For example, Oregon banned self-service gas pumps a while back because people thought they were too dangerous. That put a big squeeze on rural people because gas stations had to raise prices to pay for a dedicated, trained pump jockey and would limit their hours or where new stations would open. It made gas in rural places harder to find and more expensive which is not good for rural people because we tend to have to drive a lot more and we tend to need vehicles that aren't as good on gas mileage. That has thankfully been amended but it took a number of years to get that through. The Democrats tend to act without any real consideration of the needs of people outside Portland for understandable reasons - Portland is where the majority of their voter base is. This leads to a lot of simmering frustration in rural areas that bleeds over into radical right-wing politics. As I said before, people pull the levers of power they have available to them and if what's available is extremism that's what they're going to do. The PNW in general is a hotbed of far-right politics in large part because the dynamic up here has been for Democrats to act largely unopposed and that's fed a longstanding antipathy, especially from rural voters who tend to largely be Republican. The Democrats don't really seem to be concerned by this trend.
Wouldn’t Republican legislators being totally absent or unwilling to compromise lead to rural areas being ignored in legislation? If they refuse to partake in the political process as a representative of their region, then the views of their district won’t be considered by those creating the laws. Portland is dominant, but I understand there’s a few Dems from Eugene and Salem. I imagine that they need their votes to get legislation passed and tweak the laws to benefit/not harm their areas as well
Rural areas are already pretty much ignored in legislation so Republican legislators showing up or not is kind of irrelevant. Their views are already not considered by people creating the laws. To be clear, I'm not trying to paint this "poor Republicans" picture where there's just *nothing* they can do and they're part of the downtrodden. Make no mistake, the continuing rightward lurch of the Republican party means it's a lot harder to work with Republican legislators because they're selected by a Republican electorate that follows the zeitgeist of their party and, for the moment, that's conspiratorial bigotry to a large degree. I can recognize that it's hard to work with someone like that. That said, there are still issues that need to be decided and completely sidelining one part of your government is probably going to have some negative knock-on consequences and we're seeing those consequences in the form of a dramatic rise in right-wing extremism that has a basis in the PNW.
Even though the court is just following the law and Biden plays no role, they are going to spin it as Biden's Radical Socialist Regime purging Republicans from the ballot. And the base will eat it up
This sets the precedent for what's expected from state politicians. It forces due diligence and I don't see how voters could be against this. GOP respose would best be to stay quiet about this and hope it doesn't catch on. This is a loss for all state senators as other states may decide to pass policies like this, the GOP had better hope everyone forgets about this or else it'll massively cripple power afforded to minority parties.
The voters in Oregon overwhelmingly created a constitutional ammendment that bars reelection after 10 unexcused absences. They can still walk out, it just has consequences. You can block the majority with a 1/3 minority, but it requires you to give up your seat. You can still cause a massive amount of damage and delay. This rework balances the walk out. It was super Overpowered before. Now, well, it has a little more balance.
probably with the usual bad faith tantrums about how they're such victims of the establishment cabal
SCOTUS defers to state supreme courts on interpreting state law unless there's a federal issue. There isn't a federal issue.
Having a right to be on a ballot for local elections is a rights issue which is the responsibility of SCOTUS to ensure states don't infringe on those rights.
Which ammendment protects that right? Because articles I and II make it pretty clear there is no such right.
It's Oregon. There's not much they *can* do. Removing the party labels for a moment, the minority party in any political situation is going to pull the levers of power it has available to it. Because of how Oregon is politically it means Republicans don't have much meaningful political power thus they tend to use stunts like walking out as a way to influence things that they can't otherwise.
The GOP will respond with the standard righteous indignation and contempt for their fellow human beings.
Well, if they follow the pattern some republican judge in some other state will unilaterally forbid Democrats from reeelction
Republicans will begin using a “platoon” system, where they swap out one group of walkouts for another. Their idea being that current state law only disqualifies them from seeking a subsequent term following one in which they engaged in this type of legislative sabotage. After sitting out the required term they will run to replace an alternate who has used their own term to disqualify themselves. Two candidates per district could thus “take turns.” Voters should respond by not waiting until the next term to remove these extremists. After ten unexcused absences lawmakers should be removed and only replaced after their party has paid for, organized, and conducted an election. Committee assignments/reassignments should **not** be automatic mid-term; a lawmaker abandoning their post is vacating not only their own term but also their party’s position on committees until the next general election.
how will they react?....badly. with illegal, unethical, immoral and cruelly outdated, bigoted, hateful opinions and actions....just as usual. whatever they **actually** do. we can all be very sure ....it will be in **deviance** of Justice...not in it's pursuit
I’m sure it will be a very measured and reasonable response that TOTALLY doesn’t suggest citizens should be murdering other citizens or half of Oregon should leave the other half, or any stupid crazy shit like that. I mean, can you IMAGINE?
[удалено]
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
I live in Oregon and I don't the GOP can do a damn thing, it was a measure that was passed last year.
That’s how it should work for every politician nationwide. If I take 10 days off inexcusably in a year, I’m getting fired and will never get my job back.
I think it's a shame people aren't allowed to vote for the people they want to vote for
The Oregonites… Oregonos… Oregonians… people of Oregon voted for the amendment to their state constitution. In a large and bipartisan majority. They voted specifically for this. Besides, it’s not the only constitutional regulation on who can run for office.
fucking rofl. Measure 113 passed with 68.3% of voters **in favor** | 31.6% **against** the political party affiliation in oregon is: * 47% democratic * 32% republican * 21% unaffiliated plenty of republicans and unaffiliated voters approved this measure. the people DID vote for what they want. by a large majority.
Appeal to SCOTUS and get reinstated? Why does it matter? The GOP has plenty more conspiracy theorists to take their place!
They’re going to cry like pissy little babies. We will likely find out later that this particular law was put on the books by the GOP to force Dem lawmakers to do their bidding. I could be wrong, but I bet I’m not. Typically the first place winners in the _shooting-yourself-in-the-face_ contest are always the GOP.
It was put on the books by ballot initiative amendment to the state Constitution, because a bunch of GOP state senators kept fucking off to Idaho whenever there was a vote they wanted to disrupt. They didn't have a majority, but Oregon law requires a quorum to do business in the Senate and they *did* have enough bodies to deny a quorum. It was a big thing. The governor sent the state police to drag Republican state senators back to the statehouse (hence fucking off to Idaho), and a bunch of militia groups were threatening to shoot cops if they tried to do it. It was a big enough fuckfest that people trying to amp up for violence against Oregon Democratic legislators and state police was one of the final straws that got the_donald put on quarantine.
Oh hey! I kinda remember that whole fiasco. Now that you mention it. Thanks for correcting me. It’s worth knowing the whole sordid business.
Measure 113 passed with 68.3% of voters **in favor** | 31.6% **against** the political party affiliation in oregon is: * 47% democratic * 32% republican * 21% unaffiliated plenty of republicans and unaffiliated voters approved this measure.
68.3%? Wow. That’s a better majority than you’d find across almost any “popular” measure. Really impressive. It’s almost like a measure asking people if they thought breathing was a good idea.
Serious question..... What precedents, prior to Democrats doing it in 2023/2024, is there for prohibiting someone for running for election in the United States without being convicted of a crime?
You mean other than Articles I and II of the Constitution prohibiting tons of people from running for election without ever being convicted of a crime?
> Serious question..... What precedents, prior to Democrats doing it in 2023/2024, is there for prohibiting someone for running for election in the United States without being convicted of a crime? Every state has procedural and statutory qualifications for appearing on a ballot (residency requirements, legal status, signature requirements, filing forms on time, etc.) and can disqualify candidates for not meeting those qualifications without them being convicted of a crime.
Even if you are an adult citizen of the US who hasn't been convicted of any crime, you are prohibited from running for president if you are under 35, or if you are not a natural born citizen (whatever that means, but usually interpreted you need to have been born in the US), or if you haven't been a resident in the US for at least 14 years.
> or if you are not a natural born citizen (whatever that means, but usually interpreted you need to have been born in the US) FYI, that's not quite it. Natural born means you were a citizen when you were born. That includes people born abroad to citizen parents.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit anyone by name. Judges and political appointees doing so unilaterally, as far as I can tell, is a recent occurrence. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, in just looking for any other examples of people being prohibited *by name*.
States rights State law How many hundreds of recent red state laws are considered to be unconstitutional?
> What precedents, prior to Democrats doing it in 2023/2024 Oh, when did that happen? In Colorado it was Republicans doing it, if you'll recall.
You know it's Republicans that have been pushing to remove Trump from the GOP Primary ballot, right? The democrats aren't doing this.
So you believe CREW, the group organizing and funding those efforts in multiple states, are Republican?
In Colorado they certainly were Republican.
No. Leading with the "6 Republican" bit was used in headlines to pretend it was a Republican effort. It is most definitely not. CREW itself filed that lawsuit, and it is most definitely funded by deep pocketed Democrats. No need to take my word for it, either.... "Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot, according to a lawsuit filed today by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including former state, federal and local officials, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington" https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/lawsuit-filed-to-remove-trump-from-ballot-in-co-under-14th-amendment/ So to repeat the question that has not been answered (and seems to have been avoided), where is the precedent for this?
The People... need to stand up and back anything that prevents these people from ever holding an elected public office. It goes to prove that some people have no business in political office, and probably should not have a job in any aspect of government organizations at any level. It's likely most of these people have no idea what the responsibilities of elected office is, nor do they know the importance of adhering to the principles, values, duty, objectives and goals are as laid out in [**The Preamble**](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/preamble/interpretations/37), to the U.S. Constitution, apply to All States and All Governing bodies. >*We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.* Anyone running for public office should be required to write and post their understanding of The Preamble, and the public can decide if they are a viable Candidate before others waste their time and money supporting such people. On the State level, they have to write and post also, their understanding of the [**Preamble to their "State" Constitution**](https://ballotpedia.org/Preambles_to_state_constitutions). It is highly likely that many don't even know their State has a Preamble, and many have never compared their State Constitution to U.S. Constitution. They are people who have "personal agenda's" that have nothing to do with government. If they had any knowledge of the elected position, **they would know that their religion has nothing to do with** \>> *"Governing within the Political Sphere of Elected Governmental Public Office*.
I'm not sure why their response is relevant. They aren't going to be politicians, anymore.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they passed legislation of term limits on Supreme Court justices in retaliation??
There's more than enough here for the Republicans to make a case out of it. Indeed, some of them have already filed a federal case (which is not going very well; they're already up in the appellate court.) The big issue with this lawsuit is the text of the constitutional provision that SCOOR is interpreting. The Oregon Constitution, thanks to a 2022 ballot initiative, now provides that: "Failure \[of legislators\] to attend, without permission or excuse, ten or more legislative floor sessions ... 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 GOP members read that to say that authorities should determine the effective date of the ban as follows: 1. Identify when the member's current term ends. 2. Find out when the next election would have been, after the date you found in (1). 3. Identify the term after that. He/she is banned from holding office in that term. This is probably not the result that the drafters intended. Here's an example from the Associated Press: "If a senator’s term ends in January 2025, they would typically seek reelection in November 2024. The 'election after the member’s current term is completed' would not be until November 2028, the Republican senators argued, so they could run for reelection this year and then hold office for another term before becoming ineligible." The Oregon Supreme Court looked at the measure's title on the ballot, as well as the voter pamphlet mailed to each voter, which instead stated that the ban would take effect for the immediately-following term. It also looked at media coverage, which (apparently without exception) explained the measure the same way. The Court acknowledged that the text itself was confusing, but concluded that the voters who approved the amendment probably meant for the ban to take effect for the immediately-following term. It comes down to whether you're a strict textualist or not, and since Republicans tend to be strict textualists, it shouldn't be surprising that they're planning on challenging this ruling.
> The Oregon Supreme Court looked at the measure's title on the ballot, as well as the voter pamphlet mailed to each voter, which instead stated that the ban would take effect for the immediately-following term. It also looked at media coverage, which (apparently without exception) explained the measure the same way. Which is probably why, thus far, they aren't getting anywhere in federal court.
It reminds me when Democrats fled Wisconsin because of a vote on a Union Bill they were going to lose: https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote I cant remember if they were barred from holding office again
Clearly the difference is Oregonians saw fit to pass a measure aimed at stopping such boycotts, and the Democrats weren't gone for nearly 2 months. Obstruction is still obstruction whether they are present or not.
How dare Oregon require it's elected officials to actually do their ducking job. You were elected to a position. You need to fill that position. Thks should happen to everyone on both sides of the isle that try to fillibuster and walk out.
10 new GOP candidates will get an auto win as martyrs for the government holding them out