Opinion ID: 1430068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The reapportionment measure

Text: The paper rules of the state and federal constitutions do not produce an apportionment. The difficult practical task is to apply these rules to the realities of the state's geography, its economy, the local entities that administer many state programs, the shared social concerns that exist within and those that exist across local boundaries, and the networks of transportation and communications that link separate localities into larger communities. To accommodate such variables in constituting an elected legislature for a decade goes beyond constitutional law to the essence of constitutional politics. Before the 1980 census, the Legislative Assembly addressed in advance the criteria to govern the forth-coming reapportionment. In 1979 Or. Laws ch. 667, now ORS 188.010, the legislature stated: The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall consider the following criteria when apportioning the state into congressional and legislative districts: (1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: (a) Be contiguous; (b) Be of equal population; (c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; (d) Not divide communities of common interest; and (e) Be connected by transportation links. (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person. (3) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group. (4) Two state House of Representative districts shall be wholly included within a single state senatorial district. (5) A state senatorial district shall be wholly included within a single congressional district, when practicable. The reapportionment measure enacted in 1981, ch. 261, originated in the House of Representatives as House Bill 2001. The bill continued the existing use of single member districts in both house and senate, with each senate district composed of two house districts. Two other provisions of HB 2001 are important in the case before us. The bill itself carried an effective date of July 1, 1981, (§ 8), but § 7, as passed by the house, provided: This Act shall not become operative until the day of the regular general election in 1982, except that it shall be operative prior thereto for the purpose of nomination of candidates to be voted upon for the office of Senator or Representative at the regular general election in 1982. Also, section 6 of the bill as passed by the House provided: The following senatorial districts shall be served by the senators elected for terms ending in 1985 from the former senatorial districts: ..., followed by a list matching 15 old and new senate districts. In other words, the preexisting legislative districts would remain in effect until the day of the 1982 general election, when 60 representatives and 15 senators would be elected from the newly formed districts. Each of the 15 other newly formed senate districts would be served by a holdover senator from a previous senate district specified in the bill. The senate made a number of changes in HB 2001, but sections 6 and 7 remained as stated above. When HB 2001 was sent to a conference committee of the two houses to adjust the differences, however, it emerged with the provision for the assignment of holdover senators to new districts stricken from the bill and the following substituted in sections 6 and 7: SECTION 6. Notwithstanding ORS 260.542, the following may use the term `reelect': (1) A member of the Senate who served in the Sixty-first Legislative Assembly and who is a nominee or candidate for nomination or election in 1982 or 1984 to the Senate. (2) A member of the House of Representatives who served in the Sixty-first Legislative Assembly and who is a nominee or candidate for nomination or election in 1982 to the House of Representatives. SECTION 7. This Act shall not become operative until the day of the regular general election in 1982, subject to the following: (1) It shall be operative prior thereto for the purpose of nomination of candidates to be voted upon for the office of Representative in 1982 and for the office of Senator in 1982 in the following senatorial districts: 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 26. (2) All other senatorial districts shall be filled by election in 1984. No vacancy shall be considered to exist in such districts in 1982. The conference committee's version of HB 2001 was accepted by both houses and signed by the governor. The resulting reapportionment measure, chapter 261, is challenged on a variety of grounds in petitions filed under article IV, section 6(2). The most prominent target is the treatment of a senate district in Multnomah County, which includes most of the City of Portland west of the Willamette River. Almost all of the district consists of the present Senate District 5, a district that last elected a senator in 1978 for a term expiring in 1982. Chapter 261 forms a new District 6 by adding to this existing district some adjoining census tracts required to meet the new population ratio. The measure provides that the new District 6 (with 14 others) shall first be filled by election in 1984, that is to say, six years after the last time the electorate of the predecessor district voted for a senator and two years after the end of that senator's term. This treatment of the transition is challenged by one group of the present petitioners, headed by former Governor Tom McCall, by a second group composed of Portland Mayor Francis J. Ivancie and four city commissioners as well as representatives of various neighborhood associations, by petitioner Hudson, president of The League of Women Voters, and by petitioner Richard M. Botteri. Another group of petitioners headed by David F. Cargo adds to this attack on Senate District 6 a separate challenge based on the fact that residents of an area transferred from old Senate District 13 to new Senate District 4 will not be able to vote in a senate election between 1978 and 1984. Petitioner Norman R. Schultz attacks chapter 261 because it divides the City of Bend and Deschutes County into separate legislative districts. In addition, a general request to review the reapportionment plan was filed by petitioner Bob Goldstein. Certain other contentions presented untimely by petitioners did not enter into the present decision.