CASE SUMMARY

On October 11, 2021 a former Oregon Secretary of State and several Oregon voters filed a petition in the Oregon Circuit Court for Marion County challenging the Legislative Assembly's enacted congressional redistricting plan as violating state law and the Oregon Constitution. Petitioners alleged the Legislative Assembly's enacted congressional plan was a partisan gerrymander drawn with the intent to favor the Democratic Party and its candidates and to disadvantage the Republican Party and its candidates. In doing so, the petitioners asserted the congressional plan violated Oregon Revised Statutes § 188.010(2), which provides that "[n]o district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person," and § 188.010(1) because the Legislative Assembly ignored traditional redistricting criteria like respecting political subdivision boundaries and preserving communities of interest to effectuate the partisan gerrymander. Petitioners also alleged the plan violated their Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, and Participation under article I, §§ 8 and 26 of the Oregon Constitution because it negatively impacted their rights to participate in the political process, to express their political views, to affiliate or support a political party, and to cast a vote. Finally, petitioners asserted the plan also violated the Oregon Constitution's Privileges or Immunities Clause (article I, § 20) and Free and Equal Elections Clause (article II, § 1) because those clauses both prohibit the legislature from drawing and adopting a partisan gerrymandered redistricting plan. The petitioners sought a judicial declaration that the congressional plan violated both the Oregon Constitution and state law, an injunction barring the plan from being implemented or used in any future elections, and for the court to require the adoption of a new, lawful redistricting plan.

On November 5, 2021 the court-appointed Special Master released their recommended findings of fact and report. On November 24, 2021 the court issued an opinion upholding the plan and dismissing the petitioners' challenge. The court rejected the petitioners' statutory claim on the grounds the enacted plan was "within the range of plans" that had been adopted by the legislature and Oregon courts in the past and the Legislative Assembly did not make any line-drawing decisions that "no reasonable legislature" would have made. The court also rejected the petitioners' constitutional claims, finding the petitioners had failed to sufficiently support their claim that the plan had an impermissible partisan effect.

CASE LIBRARY

Oregon Circuit Court, Marion County - No. 21CV40180

• Order Appointing Special Judicial Panel to Decide Petitions - 9/28/21
• Petition - 10/11/21
• Letter Requesting Appointment of Special Master - 10/13/21
• Order Appointing Special Master - 10/14/21
• Respondent's Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses - 10/18/21
• Declaration of Brian Simmonds Marshall in Support of Legislative Assembly's Combined Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Motion for Protective Order and Memorandum in Support - 10/18/21
• Declaration of Brian Simmonds Marshall in Support of the Response to Petitioners' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order - 10/18/21
• Legislative Assembly's Combined Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Motion for Protective Order and Memorandum in Support - 10/18/21
• Motion to Make More Definite and Certain - 10/18/21
• Response to Motion to Amend Scheduling Order - 10/18/21
• Order on Legislative Assembly's Motion to Quash; Protective Order - 10/20/21
• Respondent's and Legislative Assembly's Motion to Strike - 10/26/21
• Response to Respondent's and Legislative Assembly's Motion to Strike - 10/27/21
• Intervenor-Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact - 10/29/21
• Motion to Dismiss Petitioners' Fourth Claim for Relief with Prejudice - 10/29/21
• Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact - 10/29/21
• Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact - 10/29/21
• Order Approving Motion to Dismiss Petitioners' Fourth Claim for Relief With Prejudice - 11/1/21
• Special Master's Tentative Findings of Fact - 11/1/21
• Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondent's Objections to Petitioners' Evidentiary Submissions - 11/2/21
• Respondent's Objections to the Special Master's Tentative Findings of Fact - 11/2/21
• Petitioners' Objections to Special Master's Tentative Findings of Fact - 11/2/21
• Special Master's Recommended Findings of Fact and Report - 11/5/21
• Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Petition and in Support of Their Request for Evidentiary and Procedural Rulings - 11/10/21
• Intervenor-Respondents' Memorandum in Opposition to Petition - 11/10/21
• Respondent's Evidentiary Motion and Memorandum - 11/10/21
• Respondent's Trial Memorandum - 11/10/21
• Petitioners' Response Memorandum in Support of Petition and in Opposition to Respondent's Evidentiary Motion - 11/12/21
• Intervenor-Respondents' Response to Petitioners' Memorandum - 11/12/21
• Respondent's Combined Response to Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Petition and Evidentiary Arguments - 11/12/21
• Order on Evidentiary and Procedural Matters - 11/15/21
• Opinion - 11/24/21
• General Judgment of Dismissal - 11/24/21