Hazell v. Brown
287 P.3d 1079
| Or. | 2012Background
- In 2006 Oregon voters rejected Measure 46 (constitutional limits on campaign finance) but approved Measure 47 (statutory limits and related provisions).
- Measure 47 contains section 9(f): if the Oregon Constitution does not allow limits on campaign contributions or expenditures on its effective date, the Act shall be codified and become operative when the Constitution allows such limits.
- Secretary of State concluded that, because Measure 46 failed, Measure 47 was unenforceable and dormant in whole.
- Petitioners (Hazell plaintiffs and others) filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel enforcement of Measure 47; Center to Protect Free Speech intervened opposing enforcement.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals held that Measure 47 is presently inoperative (dormant) under section 9(f).
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 9(f) conditions Measure 47's operative effect on constitutional amendment or controlling judicial construction; thus Measure 47 remains dormant absent such event.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 9(f) renders Measure 47 dormant | Hazell: 9(f) delays all provisions until constitution permits limits. | State: 9(f) operates to suspend Measure 47 pending constitutional changes or judicial ruling. | 9(f) triggers dormancy; Measure 47 remains inoperative. |
| Whether severing 9(f) is proper to give effect to rest of Measure 47 | Hazell: severing 9(f) would allow rest of measure to operate. | State: severance would undermine voters’ intent and other contingencies. | Severance not adopted; measure codified and held in abeyance. |
| Whether Hazell plaintiffs have a justiciable controversy to challenge measure's provisions | Hazell: plaintiffs seek declaratory relief on effectiveness and disclosure obligations. | State: lack of concrete relief and advisory nature preclude controversy. | Court found a lack of justiciable controversy under the declaratory judgment act (majority view). |
| How to interpret the contingency in 9(f) (effective vs operative) | Hazell: 9(f) refers to a broad set of limits; do not conflate with earlier invalidated limits. | State: contingency aligns with operative effect once constitutionality is achieved. | Contingency read to mean operative when constitution allows; 9(f) governs timing and operation. |
| Should Vannatta I be revisited or overruled in light of later decisions | Hazell: Vannatta I misstates free-speech scope for contributions; warrants reconsideration. | Majority declines to revisit Vannatta I; no direct ruling on its current validity. | Majority would not revisit Vannatta I; lower courts should wait for future proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazell v. Brown, 238 Or App 487 (Or. App. 2010) (summary of dormancy implications for Measure 47)
- Vannatta v. Keisling, 324 Or 514 (Or. 1997) (initial free-speech interpretation of campaign contributions/expenditures)
- Vannatta v. Oregon Government Ethics Comm. (Vannatta II), 347 Or 449 (Or. 2009) (revises absolute stance on contributions as speech; narrows holding)
- Meyer v. Bradbury, 341 Or 288 (Or. 2006) (recognizes impermissibility of certain limits on contributions/expenditures)
- State v. Hecker, 109 Or 520 (Or. 1923) (contingency language interpreted to permit operative postponement)
- Roseburg School Dist. v. City of Roseburg, 316 Or 374 (Or. 1993) (statutory language interpretation of 'limitations on' vs 'limitations relating to')
- Pendleton School Dist. v. State, 345 Or 596 (Or. 2009) (justiciability and controversy standards)
- Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or 38 (Or. 2000) (principles for reconsideration of constitutional rulings)
- Gortmaker v. Seaton, 252 Or 440 (Or. 1969) (advisory opinions constraint and justiciability principles)
- Brown v. Oregon State Bar, 293 Or 446 (Or. 1982) (justiciability and declaratory relief framework)