Prodded by a group of churches, a county judge has tossed restrictions laid down by Governor Brown, saying that she needed the approval of the Oregon legislature first.
This is disturbing to me.
On hold by state Supreme Court.
Thank ghod.
Another murderer-Judge.
It should be noted that the restrictions in Oregon have started to be relaxed for most of the state as of last Friday. (A few of the rural counties have not had a single coronavirus case.) They’re still in effect for 5 of the 36 counties, though, including the three that make up the Portland metro area. But even for them, retail establishments can reopen if they are not in a mall and follow social distancing guidelines for both customers and workers.
Bicycle shops, by the way, never had to close, but this being Oregon, I’m sure they’re considered ‘essential’. Unfortunately, barber shops are still closed in the Portland area, and I really need a haircut.
Were car dealers and repair shops open (they were in Missouri)? Same thing in an area where a lot of people presumably commute on their bikes.
The Oregon state constitution in Article X-A provides for (see page 38 at pdf link) the Governor’s authority to declare a Catastrophic Disaster. Governor Kate Brown did so on February 7, 2020.
However the same Article X-A provides that such a declaration " shall cease to be operative not later than 30 days following the date the Governor invoked the provisions."
To extend the provisions requires that “Prior to expiration of the 30-day limit established in subsection (1) of this section, the Legislative Assembly may extend the operation of sections 1 to 5 of this Article beyond the 30-day limit upon the approval of three-fifths of the members of each house who are able to attend a session.”
Further, “an extension described in subsection (2) of this section shall take the form of a bill. A bill that extends the operation of sections 1 to 5 of this Article shall establish a date upon which the provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this Article shall cease to be operative. A bill described in this subsection shall be presented to the Governor for action”
And finally “The Governor may not invoke the provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this Article more than one time with respect to the same catastrophic disaster.”
TLDR version:
[ol]
[li]The Governor can declare a disaster.[/li][li]That declaration expires after 30 days.[/li][li]The state legislature must pass a bill to extend a declaration.[/li][li]The legislature’s extension is in the form of a bill that must be passed and sent to the Governor.[/li][li]The Governor cannot repeatedly declare a disaster in regards to the same event.[/li][/ol]
The Governor’s declaration has expired. Unless and until the legislature acts the courts should rule accordingly.
Of note, the state Constitution explicitly provides that legislators who cannot physically attend a session due to a disaster may participate electronically.
The Governor of Oregon is a Democrat. The state House and state Senate are under Democratic control. What is the hold up?
Yeah, reading the State Constitution does gives me the impression that the written law IS that you can’t declare an open-ended Catastrophic Disaster emergency, you get a month and then the legislature gets to approve what will be the terms of any further extension. Seems it’s not that crystal clear however, if the State Supreme Court wants to say “everyone hold your horses, let us look at it more closely before making a final call”. Is the state claiming that the orders in place are *not *subject to the state of catastrophe limits? Or just that the challenge was procedurally incorrect?
The applicable sections of the state constitution were added with voter approval in 2016. The Governor is relying on a 1950s era state statute. Me thinks this will not bode well for Governor Brown.
The state Supreme Court is probably wanting to ensure all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed on this one. The stay gives them time to read the lower court’s ruling and reflect on it.
I should add, not only is the state legislature in Democratic control, the Democratic party has the requisite 3/5 majority in each house required to extend an emergency declaration. Just get it done already.
I think so. I don’t own a car, so it’s not an issue for me. But my roommate just bought a new car, so they’re open now.
Moderator Warning
russian heel, political jabs are not permitted in this forum. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Colibri
QZ Moderator
What makes you think there’s a hold up?
As for the Supreme Court, I don’t see where there is any wiggle room. the law seems pretty clear.
Oh, there’s a hold up. (NPR)
This was done in early March. You think they wouldn’t pull this shit again?
That falls under the “never let a crisis go to waste” doctrine. We’re in the middle of a pandemic therefore push through environmental laws.
However…
…according to that report you need a two-thirds (67%, vs. 60%) attendance for a quorum. Now, I may not be a constititional lawyer, but I have worked with politicians and legislatures for over two decades and IMO that is a baffling requirement. Supermajorities to override vetoes, convict in impeachments, amend constitutions, close debates, discharge bills, extend emergencies ? Sure. But to even MEET the Houses?
Adding another wrinkle, you don’t always need the full 2/3 of each house during a declared emergency.
(bolding mine) So depending on how the bolded part is interpreted, maybe the Republicans wouldn’t be able to shut it down by staying away. Does a court put more emphasis on “unable to compel the attendance” and not worry as much about the reasons someone might stay away?
You didn’t read that article too closely, did you? It was written on March 5th. The legislature was trying to deal with its already-set agenda. The regular legislative period is already over for 2020.
Governor Brown issued her emergency declaration and stay-at-home orders on March 8th. The legislature may have had to call a special emergency session to hear any proceeding pertaining to the pandemic – and the article is evidence of what Republicans may have done to stop whatever the Governor was trying to accomplish. I’m sorry you’re unable to connect those dots.
TroutMan, yours is an interesting question. Trouble is, by the time these questions are settled by the courts, the emergency is already underway and the time to act slips past.
I have confidence that if Dems can find a way around the obstructive behavior, they will. Mostly it comes down to November. Let’s make it count.
Yeah, I honestly don’t know how it would play out. Does the speaker say “the missing members aren’t here because of the emergency, therefore I declare a quorum,” and it would be up to the courts to put a stop to it? Because like you say, by the time the courts make a ruling, the emergency order has been de facto extended. But if the speaker doesn’t have the power to declare a quorum, then a delay would result in the expiration of the order.
Dems already have a super majority, and honestly, they’ve gerrymandered the state as much as they can. I don’t think getting rid of enough Republicans to reach 2/3 majority is realistic. Ideally, it would be nice if the Republican voters decided to boot the incumbents who can’t be bothered to do their job and bring in some Republicans with integrity, but you and I both know the likelihood of that.
the dots are an economic poison pill in the face of a pandemic.
You seem to be laboring under the false notion of a binary choice that by simply lifting the stay-at-home orders, the economy will come roaring back to life. I assure you, this is not the case. Until people feel safe, they are not going to rejoin regular society in the way you hope.
Address the public health concerns, and the economy will take care of itself.