Opinion ID: 2515815
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: S48875, Grant et al. v. Bradbury

Text: Grant Petitioners challenge the plan as it applies to Clackamas County. [24] Specifically, Grant Petitioners contend that the plan does not comply with ORS 188.010(1)(c) and OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a) because it unnecessarily ignores Clackamas County boundaries, and does not comply with ORS 188.010(1)(d) and OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(b) because it breaks up communities of common interest in Clackamas County. Grant Petitioners appear to argue that the Secretary of State should have treated county boundaries as more important than other criteria. Thus, for example, Grant Petitioners contend that the Secretary of State should not have placed less emphasis on county boundaries in the tri-county Portland metropolitan area. We rejected that argument by Kane Petitioners, and we reject it here. County boundaries are only one of the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider. The remainder of Grant Petitioners' arguments merely seek to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the various criteria. Grant Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria, nor have they shown that the Secretary of State made choices that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made in drawing the Clackamas County districts.