Opinion ID: 835999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis of Measure 7 Under Article XVII, Section 1

Text: As noted above, our inquiry under Armatta, 327 Or. at 277, 959 P.2d 49, is to determine whether Measure 7 makes two or more changes to the Oregon Constitution that are substantive and are not closely related. The foregoing analysis establishes that Measure 7 makes at least two substantive changes to the existing constitution, that is, a change to the requirements for payment of just compensation to property owners under Article I, section 18, and a separate change respecting laws restraining expression under Article I, section 8. We turn, then, to application of Armatta's closely related prong. In Lehman, 333 Or. at 246, 37 P.3d 989, this court offered a further explanation as to application of the phrase closely related from Armatta:    First, we examine the relationship among the constitutional provisions that the measure affects, both explicitly and implicitly. If the affected provisions of the existing constitution themselves are not related, then it is likely that changes to those provisions will offend the separate-vote requirement.    [T]he fact that a proposed amendment asks the people, in one vote, substantively to change multiple provisions of the Oregon Constitution that are not themselves related is one indication that the proposed amendment might violate the separate-vote requirement. Next, we must consider the constitutional changes themselves.    If they are closely related, the measure under consideration survives scrutiny under Article XVII, section 1. If they are not, it does not. Following that approach, we proceed to analyze the relationship between the two existing constitutional provisions affected by Measure 7, as well as the relationship between the substantive constitutional changes that the measure effects. As to the constitutional provisions that Measure 7 affectsArticle I, section 18, and Article I, section 8we have no difficulty concluding that, other than their placement in the Bill of Rights, those provisions bear no relation to each other. Article I, section 18, provides a right to just compensation to private property owners whose property is taken for public use. Article I, section 8, by contrast, expressly precludes, as to any person, any restriction upon the free expression of opinion, as well as upon the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever. Those two constitutional provisions involve separate constitutional rights, granted to different groups of persons. Armatta, 327 Or. at 283, 959 P.2d 49. That lack of relationship is a strong indication that those provisions are not `related' for purposes of the separate-vote requirement. Lehman, 333 Or. at 246 n. 9, 37 P.3d 989. Turning to the constitutional changes themselves, we conclude that the change that Measure 7 makes to Article I, section 18, that is, an expanded just-compensation requirement for restrictive regulations that reduce the value of private real property, is not closely related to the change that it makes to Article I, section 8, that is, creating an exception to the historical requirement that laws cannot be treat those engaged in expressive activity more restrictively than others not engaged in expressive activity, Miller, 318 Or. at 491, 871 P.2d 454. The change to Article I, section 18, generally concerns the ability of a real property owner to obtain just compensation for enforcement of certain regulationsindeed, that change generally expands the rights of property owners vis-à-vis the government in that regard. By contrast, the change that Measure 7 makes to Article I, section 8, operates to limit the rights of certain property owners, vis-à-vis other property owners, based upon the content of the expressive material sold on their property. More notably, the change that Measure 7 makes to Article I, section 8, carves out an exception to the fundamental principle that no law shall restrict expression on any subject whatever. See Henry, 302 Or. at 515, 732 P.2d 9 (Article I, section 8, broadly covers any expression of opinion on any subject whatever, without exception). By incorporating both types of substantive changes that are not closely related, Measure 7 makes two or more amendments to the Oregon Constitution that the voters were required to have voted upon separately.