On December 13, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee, refused to enjoin a new Oregon election law that prohibits legislators from running for re-election if they had at least ten unexcused absences from the legislative session. Linthicum v Wagner, 6:23cv-1624. Here is the opinion. The law is part of the Oregon Constitution and was passed by the voters in 2022.
The opinion cites an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that says Congress even has the power to criminally publish members of Congress who refuse to attend sessions of Congress.
The Republican State Senators who filed the lawsuit could still possibly get on the May 2024 Republican primary ballot, however, if they win their state case that says the law is being misinterpreted and cannot affect them until the 2026 election. The Oregon State Supreme Court heard that case on December 14. It is Knopp v Griffin-Valade, S070456.
Those of us who voted would like our representatives to also do their job. We lose pay and eventually our job for this nonsense. If regular people were to miss ten Amy’s in a year there is no job to go to. That is what we want for them
PR IN ALL REGIMES.
BARE MAJORITY TO ENACT LAWS.
Is that what you want for Democrats too?
Selective protest by withholding presence for certain votes rather than voting a particular way is a time honored way of parliamentary participation, in other words precisely doing the job. Representatives are elected to represent a district , not the entire state.
This is for good reason in many places, Oregon being a prime example, as there are marked regional differences between voter preferences in different areas of the state.
Voters of a district should have an opportunity to decide whether their district elected representatives are doing their jobs or not. Why should any part of that decision be up to anyone out side that district? Most especially in cases like this, where the voted preferences of most voters statewide are diametrically opposed to most voters of the districts in question.
LEGISLATORS — NO VOTES — NO *REPRESENTATION* — NO PAY ???
Selective absence to make a symbolic gesture in particular topics is not the same as indiscriminate absence. Whether employed effectively or the right strategy should be up to their constituents and no one else, to judge. That’s why elections and districts exist. Anything else,is an usurpation of the rights of that districts voters to choose their own idea of their best representative voice for their district’s people and transferring That power to outsiders with hostile, opposite, alien, enemy values.
I completely agree with the Realist this isn’t something new in politics that for sure, passing this law knowing full well that they would protest against it by not voting is weak especially know at the this party was the minority and knew it wasn’t really what the people in their district wanted.
I agree with both of you. Communist borg creatures like those which run the state government and it’s sinister controlling majority in Eugene and their supporters everywhere always, invariably, seek to gain control – slowly, quickly, and by whatever means they can – absolute, total, permanent control of absolutely everything and everyone everywhere all the time.
Whether that control is with the consent of the governed or not couldn’t possibly matter less to them. Mandatory attendance is just one more aspect of this totalitarian control freak direction they relentlessly aim in. Why not let the local voters whose representatives are in question decide one by one in each such representative’s district? Fascist commies, F off.