On July 12, an Oregon State Appeals Court issued a ruling in a case that challenges a state law that says no one may simultaneously be a volunteer petitioner for one initiative, while being paid to get signatures on another initiative. See this story. The Court said the issue is moot.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/team-arpaio-congressman-steve-stockman.html
Whatever happened to “capable of repetition, yet evading [judicial] review?” If your standing evaporates and your case become moot once the deadline (or the election) has passed, then how can any election law be successfully challenged, since it often takes the courts years to decide the case?
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/newsbusters-goes-there-obliterates.html
The decision addresses this issue (the opinion, A148473 Couey v. Brown, is available on the Oregon Court of Appeals website).
The specific criterion in Oregon Statute is “likely to evade judicial review in the future.”
The court decided that because the circulation period for an initiative is two years, and actions of the Secretary of State related to elections are subject to expedited appeal, that it is not unlikely that a similar case would evade judicial review.
The court said that it would not speculate whether or not the courts in the future would decide a similar case in a timely fashion.
@nbcp/anonymous poster/troll
No one in their right mind gives a crap abt this sort of thing. *No one*.
@nbcp/anonymous poster/troll
No one in their right mind gives a crap abt this sort of thing. No one.