2024 State Election Results Dashboard
image/svg+xml Skip to main content
Search image/svg+xml
Home
/
Insider
/
•••

Key Takeaways:

  • Oregon republicans have not held a majority in either chamber of the Oregon Legislature since 2006. Finding themselves in the minority, Republicans seized on a procedural strategy to block the policy priorities of the Democratic majority.
  • Four states — Oregon, Texas, Indiana, and Tennessee — require a two-thirds majority of the legislature to meet a quorum, and thus pass legislation. All the remaining states (except Massachusetts’ unique rules) only require a bare majority, which means the minority party has no way to stop a quorum from occurring if every member of the majority party shows up.
  • With Oregon’s two-thirds rule, the minority party can simply decide not to attend session in order to unilaterally slam the brakes on the legislative process.


The Oregon Supreme Court recently heard arguments by a handful of state lawmakers with their legislative careers on the line after they compiled at least ten unexcused absences in this year’s legislative session — a violation of Measure 113, which voters approved last year. A federal judge rejected the lawmakers’ request challenging the ballot measure’s constitutionality and the state supreme court heard arguments in a separate lawsuit last week that hinges on the interpretation of 13 words in the ballot measure. 

Republicans have not held a majority in either chamber of the Oregon Legislature since 2006. Finding themselves in the minority, Republicans seized on a procedural strategy to block the policy priorities of the Democratic majority.

Four states — Oregon, Texas, Indiana, and Tennessee — require a two-thirds majority of the legislature to meet a quorum, and thus pass legislation. All the remaining states (except Massachusetts’ unique rules) only require a bare majority, which means the minority party has no way to stop a quorum from occurring if every member of the majority party shows up. However, with Oregon’s two-thirds rule, the minority party can simply decide not to attend session in order to unilaterally slam the brakes on the legislative process. Texas Democrats used this strategy in a failed attempt to block voting restrictions legislation in 2021.


Republican lawmakers in Oregon have staged walkouts to deny the legislature a quorum six times since 2019, blocking votes on gun safety, reproductive health, education funding, cap and trade, COVID-19 restrictions, and redistricting. In a direct response, voters approved (by nearly 70%) Measure 113 in 2022 which amended the state constitution to disqualify legislators from reelection if they are absent from ten legislative floor sessions without permission or excuse. But despite the new constitutional amendment, Republicans boycotted attendance in the Senate for a record six weeks this year. In the process, ten lawmakers accrued at least ten unexcused absences, making them ineligible for reelection under Measure 113. Several of those members announced their retirement, but a handful filed lawsuits challenging Measure 113. 

Which brings us to the state supreme court and those pivotal 13 words. The ballot measure amended the state constitution to disqualify lawmakers from running for reelection “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.” Challengers argued that since elections are held in November, which is technically before the end of a lawmaker’s term the following January, even lawmakers that are found to violate the ten absences limit should be permitted to run for election at least one additional time. 

The justices agreed that the ballot measure was poorly drafted, with ambiguous language, but that this interpretation goes against the clear intent and surrounding election material when this measure went before the voters only a year ago. Chief Justice Meagan Flynn responded to the lawyers challenging the measure, “My first reaction is exactly yours, but then I ask myself, ‘How did so many people read it differently, including those who could have challenged the meaning that was being attributed to those words?’” It’s a fascinating case that ties together legislative procedure, statutory interpretation, political strategy, and the ballot measure process. The Court must rule on the case before the March 12, 2023, deadline for candidates to file for reelection. 


Sign Up for Morning MultiState

This article appeared in our Morning MultiState newsletter on December 19, 2023. For more timely insights like this, be sure to sign up for our Morning MultiState weekly morning tipsheet, delivered to your inbox every Tuesday morning. Click here to read past issues and sign up.