The Reading of the Bills in the Oregon Senate reminded me of the Running of the Bulls, but instead of trying to speed up the bull, so to speak, legislators try to slow down the bill.
See this news story (among others) for example: “Oregon Senate Republicans protest COVID restrictions with delay tactics,” by Dirk VanderHart (OPB), April 28, 2021.
So, a little Oregon history, in Three Parts (the last being the most interesting one):
Oregon women and their families walk and speak out to protect all our Oregon and U.S. Constitutional rights: Womens March in Oregon
Line of succession is governed by the Oregon Constitution. (Note: Oregon does not have a Lieutenant Governor.)
See also Wikipedia and Ballotpedia (and this one) and Secretary of State on succession of the Oregon Governor.
Oregon Constitution Article V (or read the entire Oregon Constitution and early Oregon Constitutions):
“My View: Emergency clause abuses democracy,” Portland Tribune, 27 January 2015, by Richard F. LaMountain
Background:
I could use this case to teach an entire course on Oregon legal research to lawyers, law students, legislators, and self-represented litigants:
City of Damascus v. Henry R. Brown, Jr. (A156920)
“ARMSTRONG, P. J.
The Association for Continuing Legal Education (ACLEA) has selected “Oregon Constitutional Law” as the winner of its ACLEA’s Best Award of Outstanding Achievement in Publications.
“Oregon was a pioneer of the movement to interpret state constitutions independently of the U.S. Constitution. Not only does the Oregon Constitution address many of the rights protected by the federal Constitution, but it also defines many of the powers that the federal Constitution reserved for the states. Attorneys practicing in Oregon should be familiar with the provisions of the Oregon Constitution and the appellate courts’ interpretations of those provisions…” [Read the full post.]
Tracy White, Oregon Attorney, and Washington County Law Library patron, writes a monthly legal affairs column for the (OregonLive) Hillsboro Argus:
April 9, 2013, OregonLive column in the Argus: “Why the Oregon Constitution matters (guest column)”
# 6 is a pretty big bite, so pace yourself (or read it with a leisurely cup of tea/coffee 🙂
Previous Bites:
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #1 and Bite #2 (Bill of Rights, 1-6)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #3 (Bill of Rights, 7-12)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: #4 (Bill of Rights, 13-20)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: #5 (Bill of Rights, 21-30)
Today’s Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #6 (Bill of Rights, 32-39)
Previous Bites:
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #1 and Bite #2 (Bill of Rights, 1-6)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #3 (Bill of Rights, 7-12)
I blogged about this some time ago, but maybe, maybe, …. See 6/25/08, Willamette Week Murmurs story:
‘Get me rewrite: Since Oregon’s founders wrote the state Constitution in 1857, much has changed. For instance, Article II, section 9, which disqualifies from public office “every person who shall give, or accept a challenge to fight a duel,” might need tweaking (Randy Leonard might be an exception). Thus this Monday, June 30, a House committee will hold a 10 am hearing in Salem on whether to hold an Oregon Constitutional Convention. Among those testifying: Bureau of Labor and Industries Commish Brad Avakian, who twice introduced bills when he was a lawmaker aimed at updating the state’s most important document. Now, he says Reps. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) and Chuck Riley (D-Hillsboro) will try to advance that effort. “It’s a tough political sell,” says Avakian. “But it’s time.”’ (link)
If you want to know more about this hearing:
Oregon Legal Research Blog