In a recent development, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken has rejected a request to reinstate three Republican senators to the Oregon ballot. These senators were disqualified from seeking reelection due to their involvement in a six-week walkout. The ruling came just before the Oregon Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments in a separate case involving senators who aimed to run for reelection despite a voter-approved law targeting walkouts.

Judge Aiken's decision, denying a preliminary injunction, was based on the conclusion that granting the request would effectively undermine a law that was duly enacted. She stated, "The court cannot conclude that it would be in the public interest to grant the requested injunction to allow the senator plaintiffs to effectively negate a lawfully enacted measure."

The attorney representing State Sens. Brian Boquist, Cedric Hayden, Dennis Linthicum, and the Republican voters and county central committees involved in the case was not immediately available for comment following the ruling.

Although the federal case can still proceed, Judge Aiken expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' ability to prove their claim that the walkout constituted constitutionally protected free speech.

Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court case centers around the interpretation of Measure 113, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2022. The measure disqualifies legislators from serving another term if they accumulate more than nine unexcused absences in a session. The suing senators argue that the measure's wording lacks clarity, rendering them ineligible for the subsequent term. The Oregon Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments for this case on Thursday afternoon, and a decision is expected to follow.

Judge Aiken also touched upon a previous ruling involving Senator Brian Boquist, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his complaint that a rule requiring prior notice before entering the Capitol constituted retaliation for his comments made during a 2019 walkout. However, Judge Aiken pointed out that the senators in this case failed to prove that the walkouts themselves were protected political speech.

While acknowledging the First Amendment's protection of free speech, Judge Aiken emphasized that the walkouts were not mere protests but an exercise of the senators' official power with the intention to disrupt the legislative process. Quoting from the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, she noted that using official powers for expressive purposes is not a right bestowed upon legislators.

The judge also drew attention to Congress's authority to compel attendance, including the threat of arrest and incarceration. She asserted that if the United States Congress could enforce attendance through such measures without violating the First Amendment, then temporary disqualification or its threat for similar conduct should not be considered a violation of the senator plaintiffs' free speech rights.

The outcome of the state Supreme Court case will significantly impact the eligibility of these senators for future terms. As this legal battle unfolds, the Oregon Supreme Court's decision will undoubtedly shape the political landscape in the state.

The Oregon Capital Chronicle, a nonprofit news organization established in 2021, focuses on comprehensive coverage of Oregon state government, politics, and policy.