Opinion ID: 835450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: defendant's challenge to article vii (amended)

Text: We first note that defendant raised the issue presented here in Lincoln Loan Co. v. City of Portland, 340 Or. 613, 136 P.3d 1 (2006). There, this court declined to reach the merits of defendant's argument, because that action was a collateral attack on a judgment in a separate action that had been litigated fully and in which defendant had participated without challenging the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court concluded that defendant was barred by claim preclusion from challenging the earlier judgment. Id. at 630, 136 P.3d 1. Here, however, we do reach defendant's argument that the Court of Appeals was improperly established and, for the reasons discussed below, reject it. [2] In Lincoln Loan, this court summarized the basis for defendant's challenge to the validity of the Court of Appeals: [Defendant] asserts that the procedure by which the voters adopted Article VII (Amended) in 1910 suffered from three constitutional defects. For that reason, according to [defendant], Article VII (Amended) never became part of the Oregon Constitution, and Article VII (Original) `remains in full force and effect today.' Article VII (Original), section 1, provides, in part, that `[t]he Judicial power of the State shall be vested in a Supr[e]me Court, Circuit[ ] Courts, and County Courts   .' That provision also refers to justices of the peace and to municipal courts. However, Article VII (Original) does not mention or provide for an intermediate Court of Appeals and does not authorize the legislature to create a Court of Appeals  or, indeed, any court. In contrast, Article VII (Amended), section 1, provides, in part: `The judicial power of the state shall be vested in one supreme court and in such other courts as may from time to time be created by law.   ' `The legislature created the Court of Appeals in 1969. Or. Laws 1969, ch. 198. If Article VII (Amended), section 1, is a valid part of the Oregon Constitution, then the legislature had the authority to create the Court of Appeals, and [defendant's argument] fails. If Article VII (Amended), section 1, is not a valid part of the Oregon Constitution, then the legislature had no authority to create the Court of Appeals, [and] the Court of Appeals had no authority to reverse [the trial court judgment in defendant's favor].' 340 Or. at 616-17, 136 P.3d 1 (emphasis in original). Defendant argues that the 1910 initiative petition that created Article VII (Amended) was adopted unconstitutionally because it (1) encompassed more than one constitutional amendment, but did not permit voters to vote separately on each amendment, in violation of Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution; (2) was enacted without compliance with the canvass and proclamation requirements of Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution; and (3) failed to set forth the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, in violation of Article IV, section 1(2)(d), of the Oregon Constitution.