Opinion ID: 1436223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasons for requesting reargument and concessions made on reargument.

Text: The new rule of legislative supremacy as adopted by the previous majority opinion, including, in particular, the distinction between matters of the structure and procedures of local government and matters of substantive policy, was attacked by a petition of the cities for a rehearing. That petition undertook, for the first time, to set forth the legislative history of the Home Rule amendments and to demonstrate that the distinction which was the basis for the majority opinion was inconsistent with that legislative history. [3] This court then called for reargument of the case, based upon a letter to the parties requesting argument on two specific questions. [4] It is of interest that the opinion by the majority makes no reference either to that request or to those questions, which provided the basis for reargument of the case and stated the questions which presumably were of primary concern to the court in calling for reargument. Of even greater significance is the fact that the majority opinion would completely ignore important, if not vital, concessions made by all parties at the time of the oral argument. Thus, not only did the cities contend, as in their petition for rehearing, that the distinction between matters of the structure and procedures of local government and matters of substantive policy was inconsistent with the legislative history of the Home Rule amendments, but both the attorney representing the State of Oregon and the attorney representing the policemen and firemen unions specifically conceded this point in response to questions on oral argument. None of these parties supported the adoption of that distinction, which is the basis for the majority opinion. In addition, the attorney for the state conceded, in response to a question, that in cases involving matters of the procedures of local government the application by this court of the exception permitting legislative supremacy even in such cases upon the showing of a need to safeguard the interests of persons or entities would require this court to make political decisions to the same extent as now required under the predominant interest test of Heinig. No one reading the majority opinion would be informed of these important facts.