SIGNS OF THE TIMES
A Small Paper With Small Articles Because It's Just Plain Small

Volume 2, Number 6


Constitutional Question?

By: JD Hoeye


Editor's Note: The following is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Mill City Independent Press.

In and Associated Press article Justice won't be removed from state's high court by PETER PRENGAMAN, appearing in the September 6, 2003, on line issue of the Salem, Oregon, Statesman Journal. Mr. Prengaman asserts that Oregon Supreme Court Justice, Thomas Balmer, will remain seated after the court dismissed a challenge to his 2001 appointment to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Prengaman continues: "The plaintiffs, led by anti-tax activist Don McIntire, had argued that Balmer should not have been appointed because a successful 1910 ballot measure, which allowed justices to be chosen statewide instead of by district, contained more than one change to the Oregon constitution."

Prengaman further asserts: "Ballot measures are supposed to ask voters to decide on only one constitutional amendment at a time."

After some searching within the text of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, I discovered the text referred to. Oregon Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph (d), reads in part:

However, the source citations for the current text of Article IV, Section 1, reads as follows:

Sections 1 and 1a titles and amendment history follow:

The Constitutional requirement that a ballot issue, where a constitutional change is proposed, only contain one subject appears to have been adopted by the people on May 28, 1968; or later; probably on May 20, 1986.

Need copies of the Oregon Constitution - as written 1859, as amended 1902 and as amended 1954, as amended 1968, as amended 1986 and as amended 2000 - to complete the inquiry and arrive at a definitive, factual, conclusion.


Copyright © 1992, 1995, 1996, 2002, 2005 All Rights Reserved
Previous | Next
About | Editorials | Home | Humor | Other | Short