Skip to main content
Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade announced today that GOP senators who racked up more than 10 unexcused absences this year will not be eligible to run for reelection next year.
“It is clear voters intended Measure 113 to disqualify legislators from running for reelection if they had 10 or more unexcused absences in a legislative session,” Griffin-Valade said in a statement. “My decision honors the voters’ intent by enforcing the measure the way it was commonly understood when Oregonians added it to our state constitution.”
As WW reported earlier, the language that Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, added to the Oregon Constitution created ambiguity.
But Griffin-Valade says, after consulting with the Oregon Department of Justice, she believes that senators’ behavior should be subject to the intention of voters, which was to exclude those senators who willfully skipped floor sessions for 10 or more days.
The secretary of state’s decision is likely to spur litigation from Republicans, five of whom, including Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp (R-Bend), have already said they intend to seek reelection next year, despite having been absent without excuse for more than 10 days during the 2023 session.
John DiLorenzo, an attorney for the Republican senators whose eligibility is in question, says he will now file a challenge to the rule Griffin-Valade has implemented for Measure 113.
“We will file an administrative rule challenge directly in the Oregon Court of Appeals,” DiLorenzo tells WW. “That will be step one of the process.”
Should Oregon appellate courts find against his clients, DiLorenzo adds, they are prepared to mount a constitutional challenge in federal court.
Updated at 2:26 pm with the DOJ legal opinion on the ambiguity of when the ban for legislators with 10 or more unexcused absences applies:
Here is the DOJ opinion underlying Griffin-Valade’s decison.
And here is the section that addresses the ambiguity about when the ban applies:
“The measure states that unexcused absences ‘shall disqualify the member from holding office as a Senator or Representative for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.’ In interpreting that text, courts must give effect to the intent of the people who adopted it. In context, and considering the legislative history, it is clear that the final phrase of the measure simply clarifies that legislators may complete their current term, even though the election occurs before it is over. We found no suggestion prior to enactment that the Measure was understood or intended to allow absent legislators to serve an additional term after accumulating too many absences, and then be disqualified the term after that.”