Opinion ID: 2515815
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: S48869, Welsh et al. v. Bradbury

Text: In their arguments regarding Article IV, section 7, Welsh Petitioners suggest that the Secretary of State's reapportionment plan violates county boundaries in violation of OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a). As we have noted, ORS 188.010(1) directs only that the districts comply with political boundaries, among other criteria, as nearly as practicable. ORS 188.010(1)(c). Similarly, OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2) directs the Secretary of State to follow ORS 188.010(1) to the maximum extent practicable. OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a) interprets ORS 188.010(1)(c) and specifies that, [w]hen possible, districts will be drawn to utilize county lines. Welsh Petitioners' arguments presume that the Secretary of State was required to, or at least should, have emphasized county boundaries at the expense of all the criteria except population. There is nothing in ORS 188.010(1)(c) or OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2) that requires the Secretary of State to place such importance on county boundaries. The Secretary of State did not err as a matter of law. [19] Welsh Petitioners further contend that the plan violates ORS 188.010(1)(b) because the districts could have a zero percent deviation from the ideal number, but instead have a plus or minus one percent deviation from the ideal. [20] Again, ORS 188.010(1)(b) is only one of five criteria that each district should strive to reach as nearly as practicable. The Secretary of State has discretion as to how to consider those criteria, both standing alone and with respect to each other. The ability to comply perfectly with one criterion does not mean that the Secretary of State must do so at the expense of all others. Petitioners have failed to show that the Secretary of State's choice to use a plus or minus one percent deviation was a choice that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made.