Sayōnara, Don’t Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out!

In Oregon the Supreme Court has spoken and they are out! Republican senators who boycotted the legislature over a bill to protect our healthcare, women from abortion bans, and added gun controls.

Oregon high court says 10 GOP state senators who staged long walkout can’t run for reelection

AP News
By CLAIRE RUSH
February 1, 2024

The Oregon Supreme Court said Thursday that 10 Republican state senators who staged a record-long walkout last year to stall bills on abortion, transgender health care and gun rights cannot run for reelection.

The decision upholds the secretary of state’s decision to disqualify the senators from the ballot under a voter-approved measure aimed at stopping such boycotts. Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from reelection if they have more than 10 unexcused absences.

Last year’s boycott lasted six weeks — the longest in state history — and paralyzed the legislative session, stalling hundreds of bills.

Isn’t it funny how the Republicans think they should be exempt from the laws but not us. They are all up in a tizzy over Trump being taken off the ballot just because of a little thing like an insurrection! Or that they shouldn’t be taken off the ballot because of law that the voters passed, what do the voters know! They cry “Let the voters decide!” but then the Republicans in Ohio take us off the ballot because they didn’t list their deadname! Whatever happened to Let the voters decide!”

During oral arguments before the Oregon Supreme Court in December, attorneys for the senators and the state wrestled over the grammar and syntax of the language that was added to the state constitution after Measure 113 was approved by voters.

The debate was over when that ineligibility kicks in: 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 court disagreed, saying that while the language of the amendment was ambiguous, the information provided to voters in the ballot title and explanatory statement made clear that the intent was to bar truant lawmakers from holding office in the next term.

“Those other materials expressly and uniformly informed voters that the amendment would apply to a legislator’s immediate next terms of office, indicating that the voters so understood and intended that meaning,” the justices wrote.

Don’t let the door hit you in the behind when you leave.