Opinion ID: 1119386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: republican form of government

Text: United States Constitution Article IV, Section 4, commonly referred to as the Guarantee Clause, provides in part that [t]he United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.... Appellant argues that the Guarantee Clause is absolutely incompatible with direct democracy as embodied in the recall, referendum, and initiative schemes.... [60] Those schemes, appellant claims, violate the ideal of a republican form of government because they allow enactment of laws outside the legislature's deliberative processes which are designed to protect the public from its own imprudent impulses. [61] Reasoning that the Constitution's reference to `republican government' is a reference to this sort of deliberative democracy, and that [d]eliberative democracy is the antithesis of direct democracy, [62] appellant concludes that the products of direct democracy, including initiative measures, are potentially invalid under the Guarantee Clause. [63] Appellant's argument challenges the constitutionality of the initiative process itself and thus presents an issue which may be beyond the power of this court to decide. In Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon , the United States Supreme Court considered a challenge to the Oregon initiative and referendum process based upon a claim that it was inconsistent with the Federal Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government. [64] In that case, the Court held that the issue was political and governmental and not within the judicial power to determine: As the issues presented, in their very essence, are, and have long since by this court been, definitely determined to be political and governmental, and embraced within the scope of the powers conferred upon Congress, and not therefore within the reach of judicial power, it follows that the case presented is not within our jurisdiction, and the writ of error must therefore be, and it is, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [65] Pacific still represents good law, [66] and earlier cases decided by this court have been in accord with its holding. [67] Because appellant's argument does not satisfactorily address the power of the court to decide an otherwise political or governmental issue, we decline to rule on it in this case. Even assuming appellant's claim does present a justiciable question, he cites no authority to support his claim that Initiative 593 violates the Guarantee Clause of the Federal Constitution. His argument is based solely upon a law review article by former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Hans Linde in response to an antihomosexual initiative in that state. [68] In his article, Justice Linde asserts that initiatives falling into any one of five categories should be declared invalid under the Guarantee Clause. These are initiatives which (1) refer to any group in pejorative or stigmatizing terms or exalt one group over another; (2) by their terms are directed against racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious or social groups; (3) are proposed in a historical and political context in which there is no doubt that voters are being asked to choose sides for or against an identifiable group; (4) appeal to majority emotions to impose values that offend the conscience of other groups without being directed at those groups; and (5) place affirmative legislation in the constitution itself. [69] Appellant contends that Initiative 593 falls into categories one and three. [70] However, the groups to which Justice Linde was referring are those commonly identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, or other socially identifiable characteristics such as sexual orientation. [71] There is nothing in the article to suggest the author meant to include persons whose only identifiable characteristic is a similar criminal history. We find Appellant's argument on violation of United States Consti. art. IV, § 4 without merit.