Court Opinion

ID: 9551749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:58:36.423999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:28.733074
License: Public Domain

*168MoALLISTER, j.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion that holds that the Secretary of State may disregard the provisions of the Oregon Constitution insofar as necessary in order to make a reapportionment that will comply with the Constitution of the United States. I agree that in order to meet federal constitutional standards the Secretary of State was required in some instances to cut across county lines in forming legislative districts.
I dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds that the Secretary of State can, as a matter of political choice, create single member districts in every county entitled to more than one senator or representative, even though such single member districts are not essential to meet federal constitutional standards. In its latest reapportionment decision the Supreme Court of the United States has reiterated that multimember districts are not constitutionally impermissible. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 US 124, 29 L Ed 2d 363, 91 S Ct 1858, June 7,1971.