Apparently, the Oregon Constitution has become little
more than an inconvenience for our state’s majority party.
Last week, Senate
Bill 1511, relating to cannabis, was brought to the Senate
floor for a vote.
Section
17 of
that bill clearly regulates the collection of state taxes on marijuana. The
bill also has an emergency clause, making it effective immediately, upon the
signature of Governor Brown.
The Oregon Constitution states, in Article
IX, Section 1a, that no law can be enacted with an emergency clause that regulates
collection of taxes. For that reason, I asked for a parliamentary ruling
regarding how the Oregon Senate could be voting on a bill that is clearly
unconstitutional.
After conferring with Counsel, the Senate President
stated that although the law created by the bill, as currently written, would
be unconstitutional, voting on the unconstitutional bill was not an
unconstitutional act. He reasoned that a bill does not become a law until it is
passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as being signed
into law by the Governor.
It was explained the House of Representatives could
amend the bill in committee before a vote of the full House. Further, the bill
is not yet a law until the bill is signed by the Governor Brown, and she does
have the authority to remove the offending emergency clause by line-item veto.
Finally, the courts could strike down the language
that makes the new law unconstitutional, while preserving the parts that are
within constitutional authority.
Therefore,
technically, the act of voting on a bill that as currently written certainly
will result in an unconstitutional law is not an unconstitutional action,
because the bill is not yet an unconstitutional law.
My motion to refer the bill back to committee to
remove the unconstitutional emergency clause was defeated on a party-line vote.
Notwithstanding the Senate President’s Orwellian ruling, the bill passed then out
of the Oregon Senate, on a party line vote, with all Democrats voting in favor,
and all Republicans voting in opposition.
When we take office, we all voluntarily swear to
uphold the Constitutions of both Oregon and of the United States of America. In
my opinion, this kind of twisting of the law makes the meaning of those oaths
hollow, at best.
Article
XI, Section 6 of the Oregon Constitution prohibits the State from owning
stocks in companies, associations and corporations, except under limited
circumstances. House
Joint Resolution 203 proposes to amend the Oregon Constitution to provide
that public universities are not constitutionally prohibited from owning stocks
in companies, associations and corporations. It refers the proposed amendment
to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular general
election.
That proposed constitutional amendment has merit.
However, its companion bill is extremely misleading.
HB
4092-A specifies the ballot title, summary and explanatory statement for
HJR 203. It asserts that the exact language in the statements shall be included
in the voters’ pamphlet and on the ballot. It further specifically prohibits
review of the appropriateness of the language by the Attorney General and the
Oregon Supreme Court.
The ballot title reads: AMENDS CONSTITUTION, ALLOWS
INVESTMENTS IN EQUITIES BY PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TO REDUCE FINANCIAL RISK AND
INCREASE INVESTMENTS TO BENEFIT STUDENTS.
That phrase must have been extremely popular and
persuasive in polling and among focus groups. It is repeated word-for-word in
the result of a “yes” vote and the summary statements.
While investment in equities may result in greater
investment returns, it may also result in significant losses. To allege that
investment in equities reduces financial risk is beyond misleading. It is
simply false.
The further statement that additional investment
income could benefit students by minimizing tuition increases and enhancing
student programs is equally specious. Not mentioned is that investment losses
would have the exact opposite effect such as harming students, increasing
tuition and depleting student programs.
Unfortunately, the Oregon Legislative Assembly has
a long history of writing such misleading ballot titles. How better to
trick Oregon voters to adopt amendments that the legislature has neither the
political will nor the votes to enact.
The purpose of review by the Attorney General and the
Supreme Court is to keep those ballot titles and statements honest and
accurate. Once again, the legislative majority is willing to bypass those
protections to ensure the election outcome they covet.
Please remember--if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
Best Regards, Doug
Senate District 28
Email: Sen.DougWhitsett@state.or.us I Phone: 503-986-1728 Address: 900 Court St NE, S-311, Salem, OR 97301 Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsett
|