Opinion ID: 2515815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Separate Vote and Revision Standards to Article IV, Section 6

Text: Moore Petitioners and Gray Petitioners challenge the present version of Article IV, section 6, on the ground that the 1986 and 1952 amendments to that provision violated the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1. [2] Accordingly, petitioners contend, Article IV, section 6, retains its original wording, which contained no provision for the Secretary of State to prepare a plan of reapportionment or for this court to review it. Petitioners assert that their separate-vote challenge, as well as their full-text and revision challenges, discussed post, fall within this court's original jurisdiction to review the Secretary of State's plan of reapportionment. Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6(2)(a), (3)(b). The Secretary of State disputes that those challenges fall within the scope of the court's original jurisdiction and has moved to strike those arguments. We choose to address petitioners' contentionswhich we do not find to be well takenon the merits. [3] We therefore deny the Secretary of State's motion as moot. In Baum v. Newbry, 200 Or. 576, 581, 267 P.2d 220 (1954), this court concluded that the 1952 version of Article IV, section 6, did not contravene the separate-vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1. A 1986 amendment to Article VI, section 6, repealed the 1952 version of that section and replaced it with a new version. However, by contrast to the 1952 amendment to the original version, the 1986 amendment made relatively modest changes. Compare Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6 (1986) with Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6 (1952). [4] In light of this court's conclusion in Baum that the more extensive 1952 amendment passed muster under Article XVII, section 1, we conclude that the more limited 1986 amendment necessarily withstands petitioners' constitutional challenge. [5] Gray Petitioners also contend that the 1986 amendment to Article IV, section 6, revised, rather than amended, the Oregon Constitution, in violation of Article XVII, section 2(1). [6] Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the 1986 amendment to Article IV, section 6which, as noted, pertained only to reapportionment under that section amounted to a constitutional revision. Compare Holmes v. Appling, 237 Or. 546, 552, 392 P.2d 636 (1964) (56 page document entitled Proposed Constitutional Amendment was revision because it provided for thorough overhauling of the present constitution). We therefore reject petitioners' challenge.