Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Justice Courts Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to let city residents vote for justice court judges
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 913, which would remove a geographic restriction that prevents residents of some county seats from voting in justice court elections. Sponsors and judicial representatives said the change would enfranchise thousands of voters; no committee vote was taken.
The House Committee on Judiciary on April 30 held a public hearing on Senate Bill 913, which would allow counties to establish justice court districts that include the county seat or city where the circuit court sits and allow residents of those cities to vote in justice of the peace elections.
Sen. Sarah Gelser Blue, D–Senate District 8, told the committee the change addresses a longstanding anomaly: "our law currently... the people that live within that city are not allowed to vote in that justice court election," she said, and the bill "simply fixes that so that everyone that is within the jurisdiction of that court has the opportunity to have a voice in who is leaving it." The senator said the measure originated from a constituent and would affect urban areas across the state if adopted.
Justin Kidd, a justice court judge who testified in support, described the issue as an access-to-justice and potential constitutional problem that disenfranchises "hundreds of thousands of Oregonians" in counties where the county seat is excluded from justice court elections. Patrick Singh of the Oregon Judges Association called SB 913 a "technical fix to an old, outdated statute" that has required piecemeal exemptions for individual counties in the past.
Committee members discussed a related house bill that applies narrowly to Marion County and acknowledged the bills should be reconciled between chambers so the legislature need not pass both. Representative Mannix and Representative Anderson were identified in committee discussion as participants in that reconciliation.
No committee motion or vote on SB 913 was recorded during the hearing; the public hearing was closed and the committee moved on to other bills.
The bill was described in testimony as a statewide solution to a problem previously addressed on a county-by-county basis; witnesses urged the committee to coordinate with the corresponding house bill and consider fee provisions that appeared in the narrower house measure.
