Document text
--> --> Supreme Court hears term limits arguments FOREST GROVE (AP) - The Oregon Supreme Court was told Tuesday that voters made too many changes in adopting legislative term limits and that the 1992 law should be overturned. Portland attorney Charles Hinkle said the law violates a constitutional ban on putting more than one amendment in a single ballot measure. The court held its session at Pacific University to hear arguments before an audience of students and others in the term limit challenge and a second case with related issues. The focus in both cases is how far courts can go in reining in the scope of constitutional amendments The term limits initiative revised restrictions on time limits in office for the governor and some other statewide officials and for the first time put limits on state legislators' terms. Hinkle said that didn't comply with the Supreme Court's 1998 ruling that provisions of ballot measures proposing to change the constitution must either be "closely related" or be voted on as separate amendments. Arguing for term limit backers, Portland lawyer Kelly Clark said there was no proof that the "alleged procedural defect affected the outcome" of the election. Clark also said opponents of voter-passed constitutional changes should not be able to file legal challenges long after elections have occurred. A total of 26 Senate and House members who now are term-limited could run for office again if the court overturns the law. One justice referred to the case as "time sensitive," indicating the court is likely to rule before the March 12 filing deadline for candidates to run in next May's primary elections. The law limits House members to a maximum of six years and senators to eight years, with an overall ceiling of 12 years. The Supreme Court also heard arguments in a case in which the Oregon Court of Appeals tightened the single-amendment restriction far too much, according to initiative advocates. The appeals court struck down a multi-pronged measure passed by voters in 1998 that included banning anonymous political ads, requiring that initiative petition circulators be Oregon registered voters and forbidding paying people to sign petitions. The appeals court said measures don't meet the single-amendment test unless a vote for one part "necessarily implies" support of the measure's other provisions. Clark, referring to that ruling in arguing the term limits case, said it amounts to an "unconstitutional impairment" of initiative rights. Portland attorney Thomas Christ said the appeals court decision was a valid narrowing of the Supreme Court's standard. "Whether one thing is closely related to another is almost in the eye of the beholder," he said. Justice Robert Durham wondered whether, as courts keep grappling with challenges to voter-passed measures, "we are doomed to have a continuing series of cases in which it's a battle of adjectives and nuances." Email your... Technical questions & comments to: WebMaster Daily Tidings editorial comments & questions to: Editor Visit our other Oregon Newspapers... | Albany Democrat-Herald | Ashland Daily Tidings | Corvallis Gazette-Times | | Lebanon Express | Newport News-Times | Springfield News | Cottage Grove Sentinel | Ashland Daily Tidings 1661 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone 541-482-3456 © Copyright 2001 Lee Northwest Publishing