State Senators Barred from Running for Re-election

Interesting story coming out of Oregon today. The Oregon supreme court ruled that ten Republican senators will be unable to run for re-election.

The Oregon Supreme Court said Thursday that 10 Republican state senators who staged a record-long walkout last year to stall bills on abortion, transgender health care and gun rights cannot run for reelection.

The decision upholds the secretary of state’s decision to disqualify the senators from the ballot under a voter-approved measure aimed at stopping such boycotts. Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from reelection if they have more than 10 unexcused absences.

So essentially, in the state of Oregon, you need 2/3rds of representatives to be present in order to pass any legislation. During the 2023 legislative session, 10 Republican senators stagged a 6 week boycott, preventing all legislation from being approved. But in November of 2022, Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment saying that any legislator who has 10 unexcused absences will be barred from re-election. The Oregon Secretary of State then ruled that the 10 republicans had violated the law and would be barred from re-election. They sued, arguing that the wording of the constitutional amendment was too vague. Today it was announced that they lost and will not be able to run for re-election.

I support the role of the minority party in government doing whatever it can, legally, to oppose legislation they fundamentally disagree with. In this case, members of the minority party simply decided not to participate in the process in order to stop legislation they disagreed with from being approved. The voters decided there should be repercussions for that action and approved a law aimed at preventing that form of opposition.

I support the amendment and the decision from the court. Show up to work. Do your job. You’re in the minority party and don’t have the votes? Work your ass off to get more support or work deals in order to advocate for your constituents. What do y’all think about this?

I don’t see an issue with this as it appears to be in accordance with the constitutional amendment.


I mean it seems open and closed.

Frankly in my view legislators who refuse to do their job (voting yay or nay) for every legislative bill should be expelled from the assembly and a new election be held. That’s just the jacobin in me coming out though.

1 Like

It’s Oregon. We all know a methed up lost cause when we see one. :rofl:


Short-sighted dimocrats are obsessed with barring people from ballots, and not giving voters the choice they want and deserve.

They’ll regret it.


Why? These ten republicans should have done their job and stayed in the assembly and voted. Had they simply done that they wouldn’t be in this pickle.

They get paid 100K per year to do that.

1 Like

They still holding up the votes?

They’re not there?

Haven’t voted on anything for the past year?

The dimocrats bill didn’t get passed anyway?

The constitutional amendment passed by 70% of voters.

Not anymore. But the people (drug addicts if we are honest) of Oregon spoke with their collective voice and said we aren’t tolerating this type of shenanigan anymore.

They paid the legislators to do a job. Said job is to present legislation, pass or deny legislation with counted yay or nay votes, and turn over legislation to the governor for enforcement. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

If they take their ball and run away like ■■■■■■■ cowards then they don’t deserve to ever sit in an assembly ever again.

Dems in Texas have done the same thing in the past and I feel the same way about them. They should be expelled and barred from any electoral process ever again. The assembly is not a place for cowards.

Matter of fact we should pass the same rule for congress. If you vote present more than twice or try to block proceedings by leaving your assigned seat during debate, then you should be expelled.

1 Like

There is a better way to deal with this, both in Oregon, Texas and other States that have a supermajority quorum requirement.

Amend the State Constitution to require a simple majority of members present to form a quorum, as is the case with the United States Constitution.

This would make it impossible for minority members of either party to accomplish anything by staging a walkout.


Oregon is a well run state that as a result, is gaining population. Oh…wait…

The latest federal census numbers show Oregon’s population is shrinking for the first time in decades. And it’s losing residents at the sixth fastest rate.

Allowance would have to be made in cases where members are REQUIRED to vote present (or abstain from voting) due to a declared conflict of interest.

I dunno. I like the expulsion idea a lot better.

Because frankly they don’t deserve to be legislators if they are cowards.

We aren’t asking them to go under murderous machine gun fire. We only ask them to vote yay or nay.

1 Like

Well of course we could carve an exception for that.

Oregon is a state full of opioid addicts.

Still they did speak. Passed with 70%. Those cowards should have thought about that possibility.


Now if only they’d brush their collective teeth. :rofl:

1 Like

That’s like asking a terrorist not to blow themselves up.

1 Like

Doesn’t half of their state want to secede?

Sounds like they’re doing important work out there.

Agree. That walkout in Texas a decade or so ago cost taxpayers a fortune and in the end achieved nothing. Just don’t demand a quorum if this happens.
Not a good look to cry about inhibiting votes by demanding ID and then go outright ban the opposition at every chance.


Remember when dems did that in Texas with the full support of the DNC?