Court upholds Oregon constitutional amendment that means republican state representatives who didn't show up for their jobs can't run for re-election

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
E

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
Oregon doesn't allow their legislature to come together and govern if 1/3 are absent. Apparently in recent years the republicans have been refusing to come to work to prevent legislation from moving forward. In 2022 the citizens of the state got fed up and amended the state constitution to require elected officials to show up to work. If they have more than 10 absences they can't run for re-election. As a result 10 state senators (9 republicans and 1 independent) will not be allowed to run for re-election. (Keep in mind state legislative sessions are usually not year round with at least some states, including Oregon, only meeting for 5-8 months during a year)

Not content with just not showing up for work AND going against the will of the citizens in the state it sounds like they're going to double down

Knopp told reporters on Wednesday that he would consider a ruling in either direction a win. If the court were to rule against the Republicans, he said, “I think we still win because our (affected) members literally have no reason to show up
Click to expand...

This was, of course, after they lost the court case

I’m disappointed but can’t say I’m surprised that a court of judges appointed solely by Gov. (Kate) Brown and Gov. (Tina) Kotek would rule in favor of political rhetoric
Click to expand...

Because most people could just not show up to their job and expect the keep it if it weren't for those dastardly Democratic judges

www.oregonlive.com

Republican senators who walked out of Oregon Legislature can’t seek reelection, state Supreme Court rules

At least five of the 11 Republicans in the Senate will leave office in January 2025
www.oregonlive.com www.oregonlive.com
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: soundforbjt, mxpw, pcgeek11 and 10 others
S

soulcougher73

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
15,834
4,368
136
Nice. I like it. More states need this. They are just bitching because no Dems failed to show up for work and got booted from re-running as well. That isn't their fault, that is yours. Typical idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo, dank69 and Pohemi
P

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,112
9,984
136
Zorba said:
The voters should've changed the quorum rules instead.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm sorry about the "finding out", but on the face of it the quorum rule seems pretty stupid - it just invites people to do an end-run around democracy by telling them they can block any legislation they don't like as long as they have 1/3 of the seats. Didn't whoever drew up that rule think about the likely results?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
IronWing

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,530
33,182
136
pmv said:
Not that I'm sorry about the "finding out", but on the face of it the quorum rule seems pretty stupid - it just invites people to do an end-run around democracy by telling them they can block any legislation they don't like as long as they have 1/3 of the seats. Didn't whoever drew up that rule think about the likely results?
Click to expand...
The quorum rules are necessary though to prevent a party from conspiring to hold poorly announced sessions and voting for things without the opposition present. State legislatures have been known to call sessions with literally seconds notice, vote, and adjourn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nakedfrog, Brainonska511, iRONic and 2 others
P

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,112
9,984
136
IronWing said:
The quorum rules are necessary though to prevent a party from conspiring to hold poorly announced sessions and voting for things without the opposition present. State legislatures have been known to call sessions with literally seconds notice, vote, and adjourn.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, have to admit that makes sense. Yet it seems as if every attempt to forestall manipulation of the system just opens the door for a _different_ means of manipulating it. Makes me wonder if it's not a never-ending process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo, Zorba and Pohemi
Pohemi

Pohemi

Lifer
Oct 2, 2004
10,865
16,939
146
soulcougher73 said:
Nice. I like it. More states need this. They are just bitching because no Dems failed to show up for work and got booted from re-running as well. That isn't their fault, that is yours. Typical idiots.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Dems have done this as well, though in other (red) states.

'Oregon has had the most noteworthy state legislative walkouts with six, followed by Texas with three, and one each in Indiana, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.'

Not sure about the others, but I do know that the one instance in WI was Democrats "fleeing" to Illinois.
_____________________________________________________________________
'Democrats kept the Wisconsin Assembly up overnight with a droning filibuster in another desperate attempt to block the Republican governor's bold plan to strip public sector workers of nearly all of their bargaining rights.

The debate marked the first movement in days in what has become a high-stakes game of political chicken between Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker.

The governor says the bill is needed to help solve the state's looming budget deficit, but Democrats see it as an all-out assault on unions, their staunchest campaign ally.

Republicans control both the Assembly and Senate, but Democratic senators have blocked a vote in their chamber by fleeing to Illinois.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of demonstrators have descended on the state Capitol in monumental protests that entered their ninth day Wednesday.'
_____________________________________________________________________

I was part of the huge protests around the capitol in Madison. This is what it was over.

That being said...if you compare the actual reasons and bills that they were performing walk-outs to avoid, it seems pretty obvious to me who the shitheads are, and who was desperate to stop actions that would harm citizens.

If you apply laws to prevent it happening, it will apply to everyone equally (or should, anyway).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11 and soulcougher73
sactoking

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,636
2,898
136
In all fairness, I think a lot of the blame lies on the nonpartisan legislative staff or whomever is responsible for codification of Oregon's statutory and constitutional amendments. This whole thing came to a head because the language that was codified was NOT the language voted on and the codified language was more imprecise. That gave the absent legislators their opening to argue that they could run for reelection now but not in the election cycle after that, which was the crux of the legal argument being made.

If they had just codified what was actually voted on then there would not have been this argument to be made.
 
IronWing

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,530
33,182
136
pmv said:
Hmmm, have to admit that makes sense. Yet it seems as if every attempt to forestall manipulation of the system just opens the door for a _different_ means of manipulating it. Makes me wonder if it's not a never-ending process.
Click to expand...
There's a reason Robert's Rules of Order is up to 816 pages. People are always thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv
S

soulcougher73

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
15,834
4,368
136
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt, pcgeek11, APU_Fusion and 3 others
S

soulcougher73

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
15,834
4,368
136
Pohemi said:
To be fair, Dems have done this as well, though in other (red) states.

'Oregon has had the most noteworthy state legislative walkouts with six, followed by Texas with three, and one each in Indiana, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.'

Not sure about the others, but I do know that the one instance in WI was Democrats "fleeing" to Illinois.
_____________________________________________________________________
'Democrats kept the Wisconsin Assembly up overnight with a droning filibuster in another desperate attempt to block the Republican governor's bold plan to strip public sector workers of nearly all of their bargaining rights.

The debate marked the first movement in days in what has become a high-stakes game of political chicken between Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker.

The governor says the bill is needed to help solve the state's looming budget deficit, but Democrats see it as an all-out assault on unions, their staunchest campaign ally.

Republicans control both the Assembly and Senate, but Democratic senators have blocked a vote in their chamber by fleeing to Illinois.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of demonstrators have descended on the state Capitol in monumental protests that entered their ninth day Wednesday.'
_____________________________________________________________________

I was part of the huge protests around the capitol in Madison. This is what it was over.

That being said...if you compare the actual reasons and bills that they were performing walk-outs to avoid, it seems pretty obvious to me who the shitheads are, and who was desperate to stop actions that would harm citizens.

If you apply laws to prevent it happening, it will apply to everyone equally (or should, anyway).
Click to expand...
I am ok holding them to the same standard as OR is doing. But i'm not a hypocrite who only wants rules to apply to the "other side".
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and Pohemi
A

APU_Fusion

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2013
1,693
2,486
136
As one who lives in Oregon and voted for this I say 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳. You need public meeting laws including quorums to prevent tyrannical rule by one second meeting notices and suspension of Opposing members. Much like closing the loophole where a vice president could theoretically not certify election. The days of any ethics and belief in doing the right thing are long over (not that they were ever really a great thing).

just to add, i do‘t care if it is democrats, republicans or independents. Meet, compromise and get shit done. Don’t want to work with others then resign and shut the hell up.

i loathe MAGATS and their representatives but they were voted in. It is what it is. Gerrymandering is the real root of this as Zorba says but if you hate a bill the majority is passing vote no and work to get more representation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,264
4,950
136
Exterous said:
Oregon doesn't allow their legislature to come together and govern if 1/3 are absent. Apparently in recent years the republicans have been refusing to come to work to prevent legislation from moving forward. In 2022 the citizens of the state got fed up and amended the state constitution to require elected officials to show up to work. If they have more than 10 absences they can't run for re-election. As a result 10 state senators (9 republicans and 1 independent) will not be allowed to run for re-election. (Keep in mind state legislative sessions are usually not year round with at least some states, including Oregon, only meeting for 5-8 months during a year)

Not content with just not showing up for work AND going against the will of the citizens in the state it sounds like they're going to double down



This was, of course, after they lost the court case



Because most people could just not show up to their job and expect the keep it if it weren't for those dastardly Democratic judges

www.oregonlive.com

Republican senators who walked out of Oregon Legislature can’t seek reelection, state Supreme Court rules

At least five of the 11 Republicans in the Senate will leave office in January 2025
www.oregonlive.com www.oregonlive.com
Click to expand...


Good. I am a firm believer in showing up for work. If you don't show you don't get paid and get fired to boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenman
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,806
54,885
136
pmv said:
Hmmm, have to admit that makes sense. Yet it seems as if every attempt to forestall manipulation of the system just opens the door for a _different_ means of manipulating it. Makes me wonder if it's not a never-ending process.
Click to expand...
Basically democracy requires all (or nearly all) of its participants to act with at least a modicum of good faith. If you don't have that there's no rule that will save you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon, hal2kilo, Brainonska511 and 2 others
P

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,112
9,984
136
fskimospy said:
Basically democracy requires all (or nearly all) of its participants to act with at least a modicum of good faith. If you don't have that there's no rule that will save you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I've thought this (and said it) before, but it really reminds me of that Godel's incompleteness stuff - that every formal system of logical rules depends for it's robustness on truths that can't be derived from the system itself. I have to wonder if that's actually a known tenet of the philosophy of law, just as it is with maths (and I just don't know enough about law to be aware of that)?

The other thing I wonder about is that the nature of the participants itself is partly formed by the system they exist within. So is there a system that won't produce people who undermine it? i.e. is a stable system possible?
 
A

APU_Fusion

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2013
1,693
2,486
136
pmv said:
Yeah, I think I've thought this (and said it) before, but it really reminds me of that Godel's incompleteness stuff - that every formal system of logical rules depends for it's robustness on truths that can't be derived from the system itself. I have to wonder if that's actually a known tenet of the philosophy of law, just as it is with maths (and I just don't know enough about law to be aware of that)?

The other thing I wonder about is that the nature of the participants itself is partly formed by the system they exist within. So is there a system that won't produce people who undermine it? i.e. is a stable system possible?
Click to expand...
Nope. We are asses and all systems have holes … 😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom