Opinion ID: 887019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Oregon Decision

Text: ¶ 30 It appears the Oregon Supreme Court is the only other appellate court that has addressed the question of constitutional power to assign holdovers after a redistricting. Cargo v. Paulus (1981), 291 Or. 772, 635 P.2d 367. ¶ 31 As of 1980, redistricting under the Oregon Constitution was performed in the first instance by the legislature. In 1980 the Oregon legislature's redistricting plan designated half of the thirty senatorial districts as open and the other half as filled. The plan, however, did not designate a correspondence between the heldover senators and the filled districts. Thus, those senators were left serving the remainder of their terms without a clearly identified constituency. The Oregon supreme court held that each senator must be identified with a particular district. McCall v. Legislative Assembly (1981), 291 Or. 663, 634 P.2d 223. As required by the Oregon Constitution, the court directed the secretary of state to submit a revised plan. ¶ 32 The revised plan came before the court in Cargo v. Paulus in which the intervenors challenged the secretary's assignment of holdover senators. The Oregon court thus had to decide whether Oregon recognized holdover senators at all or whether all senate seats would be declared vacant. The court held that no senator's term should be shortened. ¶ 33 The Oregon court then had to decide whether the secretary had the authority to assign the holdovers as part of the redistricting plan. Although the Oregon Constitution was silent as to the assignment of holdover senators, it did authorize the court to direct the secretary of state to draft a plan. The Oregon court held that the unavoidable inference is that the Secretary is authorized to do what is necessary to draft a reapportionment plan.... Cargo, 635 P.2d at 369. Because the court had decided that the Oregon Constitution envisages the assignment of Senators in a reapportionment, Cargo, 635 P.2d at 369, rather than shortened terms, it followed that making the assignments was part of planning for reapportionment and redistricting. On an historical note, the court observed that Oregon had previously enacted two reapportionment plans which assigned senators to districts, thereby reflecting a continuing view that an assignment of Senators is a valid part of a reapportionment plan and we so hold. Cargo, 635 P.2d at 369. This parallels the situation in Montana which, as noted earlier, also has a history of enacting redistricting plans which assign holdover senators. As a result of Cargo, Oregon's Constitution has since been amended, and as of 1986 it expressly refers to holdovers and requires that they be assigned as part of redistricting. ¶ 34 Although the Montana Constitution places the redistricting authority with the Districting and Apportionment Commission rather than the Secretary of State, we, like the District Court, find the Cargo reasoning to be persuasive. ¶ 35 Having reviewed the text of Article. V, Section 14, and the Constitutional Convention transcripts, we conclude that Article V, Section 14's mandate that the Commission effect redistricting is self-executing and that, as the history of implementation illustrates, the power to assign holdover senators to districts is an inherent part of the redistricting process. By granting redistricting authority to the Commission under Article V, Section 14, the Constitution denied the Legislature any latitude to invoke its plenary powers. The legislation designed to transfer the power to assign holdover senators from the Commission to the Legislature violates Article V, Section 14, of the Montana Constitution. ¶ 36 The District Court's well-reasoned opinion is hereby affirmed. Senate Bill 258 (codified as § 5-1-116, MCA), Senate Bill 445 and Senate Joint Resolution 23 are hereby declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect. KARLA M. GRAY, C.J., PATRICIA O. COTTER, JOHN WARNER, JAMES C. NELSON, JIM REGNIER and JIM RICE, JJ., concur.