[Grovenet] Speaking of curious Supreme Court decisions ...

[Meredith Bliss]

The Oregon Supreme Court finally made a decision
(http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S50900.htm) on 2000 Ballot
Measure 3 that effectively ended civil forfeiture in Oregon . The
challenge was brought by the Lincoln [County] Interagency Narcotics Team
represented by assistant county counsel Rob Bovett
(http://159.121.112.123/Forfeiture/BM3Challenge.htm). The central issue
was the interpretation of a 1998 Court decision barring in a single
measure "two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive
and are not closely related." Various Oregon courts have struggled with
the interpretation of that holding ever since, and most of their
attempts to articulate a clear methodology for the application of that
decision have been rebuffed by the Supreme Court, sometimes with barely
disguised sarcasm, but with the effect of piling up seemingly
contradictory standards for interpretation. Measure 3 provided the
ultimate test of that struggle since it only created one new section of
the Oregon Constitution, and no explicit modification of any other
provision. The decision is notable in several respects, besides
affirming the original court decision to uphold Measure 3. First, it
took the Court nearly two years to render its decision, giving Mr.
Bovett the distinction of having the oldest undecided case before the
Supreme Court for nearly a year. And second, the decision was a split
decision with a three-person plurality decision and a three-person
dissenting opinion, decided by a fourth justice who affirmed the
deciding plurality's decision, but rejected their logic! It is also
curious that one of the Measure 3 proponents argued in the case that
Measure 3 did not violate this "separate vote requirement," while
arguing in another case that a similarly straight-forward measure
proposed this year did violate that requirement. While the relative
simplicity of the issue in Measure 3 provided hope that the Court would
finally issue a clear, unequivocal standard for the review of these
cases, clearly, that has not happened, and we can continue to expect
many more lengthy challenges to initiatives on the separate vote issue
in the future.


----------------------------------------
Just happy to be here, but speaking 
only for myself!
Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss
----------------------------------------