Oregon Supreme Court Rules Lawmakers Cannot Seek Reelection After Senate Boycott

By Jonathan Allen

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Republican lawmakers who staged a six-week boycott of legislative sessions last year, in protest against abortion and gun control bills, were properly disqualified from running for reelection.

Last May, ten of the twelve Republican members of Oregon’s Senate initiated their walkout, preventing the Democratic majority from achieving the two-thirds quorum necessary to vote on various bills. This walkout marked the longest in the state’s history, following a ballot measure in 2022 that aimed to amend the constitution to disqualify truant lawmakers from future terms.

The amendment specified that a lawmaker with ten or more unexcused absences from legislative sessions would be considered to have engaged in "disorderly behavior" and would be barred from serving in the legislature after their current term ends.

In August, the Oregon Secretary of State determined that the ten lawmakers who boycotted the Senate were thus disqualified from appearing on the ballot for the 2024 elections. Five of the lawmakers subsequently filed a lawsuit, contending that the wording of the 2022 ballot measure signified they were only disqualified for the term following the upcoming election.

The state’s Supreme Court, however, disagreed, referring to the explanations provided to voters regarding the ballot measure and its media coverage. The justices noted that, based on the text of the amendment, voters would have understood that the disqualification applied to the immediate term following any legislator’s ten or more unexcused absences.

The Secretary of State expressed satisfaction that her interpretation of the amendment was upheld. She stated that her goal was to honor the will of the voters.

A lawyer representing the lawmakers who sued observed that the court missed an opportunity to emphasize careful drafting for future ballot initiatives. He expressed concern that the decision might pose challenges for those relying on it in the future.

The Republican lawmakers involved in the boycott claimed they were enforcing a 1979 law that required state bills to be written in simple language. Democrats countered that their Republican colleagues were objecting to the substance of the bills, rather than their clarity. These bills aimed to allow children under 14 to seek abortions without parental consent and to raise the minimum purchase age for firearms from 18 to 21.