Hazell v. Brown
238 Or. App. 487
| Or. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Oregon voters approved Measure 47 (2006) and rejected Measure 46, amid context from Vannatta I on Measure 9’s limits.
- Measure 47 imposes contribution/expenditure limits and disclosure requirements, plus a savings provision (9)(f) deferring operative effect until constitutional authorization occurs.
- Section (9)(f) provides: if the Constitution does not allow limits on contributions or expenditures on the effective date, the act shall be codified and become effective when the Constitution allows or is amended to allow such limits.
- Secretary of State announced that, because Measure 46 failed, the conditions for Section (9)(f) were not fulfilled, so Measure 47 remained dormant and nonoperative.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory/injunctive relief to enforce Measure 47; Center to Protect Free Speech, Inc. and Vannatta intervenors challenged (9)(f) as void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section (9)(f) violate Article I, §21? | Hazell/intervenors argue it delegates legislative power unconstitutionally. | Defendants contend it governs operate date, not enactment; constitutional under Hecker. | Section (9)(f) survives; operative when constitution allows. |
| Does Section (9)(f) violate Article IV, §1(4)(d)? | Horton argues it lacks a date-certain trigger for operation. | Defendants say effective date is separate from operation, satisfying §1(4)(d). | No violation; §1(4)(d) governs effective date, not operation; no error. |
| What does 'limitations on political campaign contributions or expenditures' mean for Section (9)(f)? | Hazell contends 'limitations' cover all Measure 47 provisions on contributions/expenditures. | Defendants urge it refers to Constitutional prohibitions from Vannatta I (unconstitutional limits). | Refers to prohibitions/limits deemed unconstitutional in Vannatta I; dormant unless constitutional changes occur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Comm., 347 Or. 449 (2009) (clarified aspects of Vannatta I; not overruled)
- Vannatta v. Keisling, 324 Or. 514 (1997) (held campaign limits unconstitutional; expenditures protected)
- Hecker, 109 Or. 520 (1923) (interpreted 'take effect' language; operation rather than enactment)
- Libby v. Olcott, 66 Or. 124 (1913) (contingent legislation and anticipated elections)
- Rathie, 101 Or. 339 (1921) (death-penalty contingent legislation; contingency pending election)
- Marr, 182 Or. 383 (1947) (operation of legislation contingent on voter action; severability)
- People's Util. Dist. v. Wasco Co., 210 Or. 1 (1957) (limitation on legislative action and revival by amendment)
- Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation in constitutional context)
- Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 237 Or.App. 149 (2010) (applies context/history in ballot-measure interpretation)