This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A couple weeks ago, the Oregon Supreme Court delivered a long-expected ruling on a major election issue in the state.

In a unanimous decision, the Court said Republican senators who participated in the longest walkout in state history in the 2023 legislative session cannot seek re-election in 2024 or 2026.  [As an aside, both Republicans and Democrats have used the walk-out tactic in past legislative sessions.]

In its decision, the Court rejected arguments from five Republican senators that Measure 113, a voter-approved 2022 law meant to dissuade lawmakers from walking out and shutting down the legislative process, was worded too badly to be enforced.

For me, a non-attorney, the ruling raised this question:

• Should judges, when confronted with issues like this, attempt to discern what voters intended when they cast ballots?
• Or, should they assess the specific wording of such initiatives and let the chips fall when they may based just on the words, not perceptions of the intent of Oregon voters.

I know observers who go both ways on the question.

From Salem Reporter, here is the way the Oregon justices summarized their ruling:

“Because the text is capable of supporting the secretary’s interpretation (the Oregon Secretary of State), and considering the clear import of the ballot title and explanatory statement in this case, we agree with the secretary that voters would have understood the amendment to mean that a legislator with 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session would be disqualified from holding legislative office during the immediate next term, rather than the term after that.” 

The ruling means 10 Republican senators – one-third of the Senate – are ineligible for re-election.  Two of the 10, Senators Bill Hansell of Athena and Lynn Findley of Vale, already planned to retire.  Four others – Senators Daniel Bonham of The Dalles, Cedric Hayden of Fall Creek, Kim Thatcher of Keizer, and Suzanne Weber of Tillamook – were elected to four-year terms in 2022 and will serve until January 2027.

And four, including Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, must end their Senate careers – at least temporarily – in January.

The ruling could have had immediate implications for the short session of the Oregon Legislature now under way in Salem.  The now-barred senators said they might not show up for floor sessions, which would have deprived the Senate of a quorum. 

But the threat has not occurred, at least so far.

More from Salem Reporter:

“The lawsuit depended on how justices would interpret just 13 words of the 2022 law, which stated that lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences would be ineligible for office ‘for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.’

“Legislative terms end the January following a November election, so the Republican senators who sued argued that the six senators who participated in the walkout and were up for election in 2024 would be allowed to run in 2024.  Their current terms end in January 2025, so they argued that they would be ineligible to run in 2028. 

“’The text of the amendment does not unambiguously support either interpretation.  The text would more clearly support petitioners’ reading – and weaken the secretary’s reading – if it referred to ‘the term following the election [that occurs] after the member’s current term is completed.’

“With ambiguous language, the Supreme Court looked at the materials voters saw when they made their decision in 2022:  The ballot title and state-issued voters’ pamphlet.”

So, armed with that information, the Court ruled as it thought voters intended when they cast ballots.

What do I think, as if what I think matters?

Well, I tend to fall down on the side of making decisions on the exact wording in ballot initiatives.  Which means that, on the part of initiative drafters, care should be taken to get the wording right…legally right.

The alternative – trying to determine the intent of voters – is fraught with peril for several reasons.  First, who knows what voters thought when they encountered language in initiatives on which they had to vote.  Second, expressing the “intent of the voters” puts all voters into the same camp, which strikes me as risky business.

Who knows what each voter thought as they cast ballots?

This perception is countered by my wife, a very bright person.  She said voters knew exactly what they were doing on the walk-out issues, so the Supreme Court might the right decision.

So be it.