Lincoln Interagency Narcotics v. Kitzhaber
Decision Date | 19 October 2006 |
Docket Number | S50904.,CA A115401.,SC S50900 (control).,CC 00C-19878. |
Citation | 341 Or. 496,145 P.3d 151 |
Parties | LINCOLN INTERAGENCY NARCOTICS TEAM (LINT), a law enforcement agency created by intergovernmental agreement, Respondent on Review, and Lincoln County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Plaintiff, and Animal Legal Defense Fund, Oregon Humane Society, Humane Society of the Willamette Valley, Stephan K. Otto, Sharon M. Harmon and Wayne S. Geiger, Respondents on Review, v. John KITZHABER, M.D., Governor of the State of Oregon, Bill Bradbury, Oregon Secretary of State, and the State Of Oregon, Petitioners on Review, and Ray Heslep and Sandra Adamson, Petitioners on Review. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Philip Schradle, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners on review John Kitzhaber, M.D., Bill Bradbury and State of Oregon. With him on the briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Eli D. Stutsman, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners on review Ray Heslep and Sandra Adamson.
Robert E. Bovett, Newport, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review LINT.
B. Carlton Grew, Portland, filed the brief for respondents on review Animal Legal Defense Fund, Oregon Humane Society, Humane Society of the Willamette Valley, Stephan K. Otto, Sharon M. Harmon, and Wayne S. Geiger.
Before CARSON, Chief Justice,** and GILLETTE, DURHAM, DE MUNIZ,*** BALMER, and KISTLER, Justices, and RIGGS, Justice pro tempore.†
The issue in this case is whether Ballot Measure 3 (2000) (Measure 3), a constitutional amendment that the people adopted pursuant to the initiative process, actually contains two or more constitutional amendments in violation of Article XVII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution.1 A divided panel of the Court of Appeals held that the measure does contain two or more amendments because it makes at least two substantive changes to the constitution that are not closely related. Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 188 Or.App. 526, 72 P.3d 967 (2003). For the reasons that follow, we disagree with that conclusion and therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The voters adopted Measure 3 at the November 7, 2000, general election. The measure adds a new section dealing with forfeitures to Article XV of the Oregon Constitution. Measure 3 provides:
(Emphasis in original).
Measure 3 follows the unfortunate practice, sometimes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rogers
...to provide to persons whose property is subject to forfeiture, and how to use forfeiture proceeds ( Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or. 496, 145 P.3d 151 (2006)); 13 and (6) whether to permit the legislature to prohibit or limit campaign contributions and expenditures a......
-
Chapter §9.4 HOW TO CHALLENGE AN INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR STATUTE
...because when Justice Gillette wrote later for a three-judge plurality in Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496, 145 P3d 151 (2006), one concurring and three dissenting justices (a majority of the court) took issue with the Lehman process for determining whether a close......
-
Chapter § 9.6
...because when Justice Gillette wrote later for a three-judge plurality in Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496, 145 P3d 151 (2006), one concurring and three dissenting justices (a majority of the court) took issue with the Lehman process for determining whether a close......
-
Chapter §9.3 HOW TO UNDERTAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR STATUTORY ENACTMENT BY INITIATIVE
...Protection Act of 2000," an initiated amendment that was analyzed in Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496, 503, 145 P3d 151 (2006) (the plurality called the placement of such material into the constitution an "unfortunate practice"). To begin the process, the chief pe......