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

Heading: other legal challenges

Text: Petitioner Goan contends that the Secretary of State should have deferred to the Legislative Assembly's plan of reapportionment, even though the Governor vetoed that plan. He relies on the following statement in McCall: When the Legislative Assembly is able to achieve agreement in this difficult decennial assignment, that achievement is entitled to be respected if possible. 291 Or. at 685, 634 P.2d 223. Petitioner Goan misunderstands the significance of the statement in McCall, which referred only to this court's standard of review. The statement was not an interpretation of the constitution in the sense that it would need to be for Petitioner Goan's challenge to have merit. Welsh Petitioners contend that this court should void the Secretary of State's reapportionment plan because the Secretary of State did not use what those petitioners describe as the settled reapportionment process. Article IV, section 6, grants to this court original jurisdiction to consider whether the plan complies with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto or does not comply with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto. Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6(3)(c), (d). Even assuming that past reapportionment plans have followed a settled process, in this context that process does not have the force of law and, thus, does not provide a basis for voiding the Secretary of State's plan.