Opinion ID: 835999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Principles Respecting Article XVII, Section I, and Parties' Contentions

Text: As noted earlier, the trial court concluded that Measure 7 violated the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1, which provides, in part: When two or more amendments shall be submitted    to the voters of this state at the same election, they shall be so submitted that each amendment shall be voted on separately. The trial court relied, in part, upon Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or. 250, 277, 289, 959 P.2d 49 (1998), in which this court concluded that, to determine whether a measure denominated as a single amendment actually contained two or more amendments for constitutional purposes, a court must determine whether, if adopted, the proposal would make two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive and that are not closely related. This court recently reaffirmed that holding in Lehman v. Bradbury, 333 Or. 231, 242, 37 P.3d 989 (2002). The state and intervenor contend, at the outset, that Measure 7 makes only one substantive change under the first part of the Armatta inquiry and, consequently, that further analysis under Article XVII, section 1, is unnecessary. Alternatively, the state and intervenor contend that, even if Measure 7 makes more than one substantive change to the Oregon Constitution, those changes are closely related. In response, plaintiffs contend that the trial court correctly concluded that Measure 7 contravened the separate-vote requirement because the measure made multiple, substantive changes to the Oregon Constitution that were not closely related.