Cases that are otherwise justiciable, but in which a court's decision no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties,' are moot. Because Ballot Measure 9 failed at the polls, a decision by us that held that the Secretary of State erred in submitting the measure to the voters would not have any practical effect. The measure did not become law, so the question whether it was error to allow people to vote on it is now purely academic. Therefore the case is moot, and, unless it comes within an exception to the mootness doctrine, it must be dismissed. Plaintiffs argue that the case is capable of repetition yet evading review and, for that reason, that we should decide the case on the merits even though it is moot.
Defendant counters that Oregon courts have rejected a mootness exception for such cases.
Accordingly, plaintiffs have asked us to revisit the issue whether the exception applies in Oregon. This exception does not apply merely because the issue might recur in another case with different parties. The parties must demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the event complained of will recur with respect to themselves. I am persuaded that the first requirement for the exception, that the challenged action will evade review, is not met in this case. About two years elapsed between the date that plaintiffs filed their case in the trial court and the election at which the voters rejected the measure.