SALEM, Oregon (WHN) – The will of the people can be a messy thing. In 2022, Oregonians overwhelmingly passed Measure 113, a constitutional amendment designed to end the legislative gridlock caused by partisan walkouts. The idea was simple. If a lawmaker racks up 10 or more unexcused absences, they can’t run for re-election. But now, thanks to a single, ambiguously worded sentence, Governor Tina Kotek is steering her state toward a genuine constitutional crisis, one that pits her own office against the Secretary of State and, most critically, the state’s highest court.
It’s a mistake of historic proportions.
The history here is important. For years, minority Republican lawmakers used the walkout as a tool to deny Democrats the quorum needed to pass legislation on everything from climate change to gun control. Measure 113 was the voters’ response, a clear directive to legislators: do your job or find a new one. The measure states that an offending lawmaker is ineligible to serve “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.” To most, the meaning seemed obvious. If you walk out during the 2023 session, you can’t be on the ballot in 2024. That’s precisely how Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade interpreted the law when she disqualified the boycotting senators.
But the senators who participated in the record-breaking six-week walkout last year found a loophole. Their argument hinges on a hyper-literal, and frankly, self-serving reading of the text. They claim the penalty doesn’t kick in until after their *current* term is finished, meaning they would be barred from running in the election for the term *after* the next one. For a senator whose term ends in January 2025, this interpretation means they could conveniently run for re-election in 2028. For others, it would be 2030. It’s an interpretation that effectively guts the measure for half the Senate, delaying any real consequence for years.
This is where Governor Kotek’s actions become so problematic. Instead of letting the Oregon Supreme Court—the proper venue for resolving such a dispute—render its judgment, Kotek has charged ahead. She is actively appointing Republicans to run for the seats of the very same senators who the state’s chief elections officer has already disqualified. She has effectively endorsed the Republican argument before the judges have even had their final say. It’s a stunning move from a Democratic governor, and one that displays a breathtaking disregard for the separation of powers.
The governor’s office may frame this as an attempt to ensure representation and keep the government functioning. But the reality is that it pre-empts the judiciary. It creates a chaotic scenario where the governor’s appointees could be campaigning for seats the Supreme Court may soon declare they have no right to contest. What happens then? Does the governor rescind her appointments? Do the ballots get reprinted? This isn’t just poor planning; it’s an invitation to electoral mayhem.
The core flaw isn’t just in Kotek’s political calculus. It’s in her apparent misunderstanding of her role in this moment. The executive branch, through the Secretary of State, has made its determination. The legislative branch, through the boycotting senators, has challenged it. And the judicial branch is now weighing the arguments. For the head of the executive branch to jump into the middle of that process, siding with the challengers against her own administration’s ruling, is an extraordinary breach of protocol.
Critics of the measure, including the five senators suing the state, argue that the voter pamphlet was misleading and that the penalty amounts to a “political death sentence.” That is an argument for the courts to decide. It is not for the governor to validate with premature appointments. By doing so, she lends the weight of her office to one side of a pending legal battle, undermining the authority of both the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court itself.
So Oregon waits. The state’s political future now hangs on how a few justices will interpret a poorly constructed sentence in a voter-approved amendment. Their decision will determine not only the careers of 10 state senators but also the functional power of the Democratic supermajority. Was this the outcome 68% of Oregon voters intended when they sought to punish legislative obstruction? It seems unlikely.
Governor Kotek had an opportunity to stand back and respect the constitutional process. She could have waited for the court’s ruling, providing stability and showing deference to the judicial branch. Instead, she chose to inject more uncertainty into an already volatile situation. The Oregon Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter and a decision is expected before the ballots are finalized for the next election.
