February 27, 2004
(Updated) Does The Constitution Apply To Deborah Kafoury And Jeff Kruse?
Legislators Appear To Be Violating Voter-Approved Law
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Very early Thursday morning, Jack Bogdanski pointed out an Oregonian article that I remember seeing as I turned a page, but had not stopped to read:
A very alarming story was buried in the back of The Oregonian yesterday. Two members of the Oregon House of Representatives are refusing to give up their House seats, even though they have moved out of their House districts and therefore are apparently sitting in the Legislature illegally.
The legislators in question are Jeff Kruse, Republican for (in theory) District 7, and Deborah Kafoury, Democrat for (in theory) District 43.
Switching to the newspaper article itself:
Greg Chaimov, the Legislature's chief legal adviser, has said the state constitution requires legislators to live at all times in the district they represent. Oregonians overwhelmingly approved the constitutional change in 1995.
In fact, as Jack indicates, the measure passed on a vote of 709,931 to 45,311. Now, it would be a constitutional fact even with a one-vote margin, but you'd think perhaps this would be bigger news than it has been, if for no other reason that the fact of such a large margin of victory for the law.
What does the law say, exactly? Well, the part in question is in the last provision of Article IV, Section 8 of the Constitution of Oregon:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative who at all times during the term of office of the person as a Senator or Representative is not an inhabitant of the district from which the Senator or Representative may be chosen or has been appointed to represent.
(It should be noted that another part of Section 8 allows for a legislator to be "an inhabitant of any district" after "the operative date of an apportionment" until "the expiration of the term of office." We don't think that protects Kruse's move -- there was an apportionment in 2001 -- but perhaps someone with more knowledge than us can dig up the timeframes involved and make this clear.)
There's some brief discussion over at Jack's item on this as to the wording of the above, and whether or not it might be construed to mean something other than what it seems to mean. Well, if that were the case, you wouldn't get comments like these as reported by The Oregonian:
Jim Edmunson, the state Democratic Party chairman, doesn't plan to challenge Kruse's violation in court. He said, "Obviously the rule of law applies to all, and so it really wouldn't be fair to complain about a Republican violating the constitution if we didn't hold ourselves to the same standard."
Spokeswoman Dawn Phillips said the state Republican Party will stay out of the matter.
"We weren't going to weigh in on Kruse," she said, "and we're not going to comment on Deborah."
It's the Democratic response that's the real kicker, since it so clearly indicates that they know damned well that their legislator is breaking state constitutional law, in addition to defying the will of an overwhelming majority of Oregon voters. But apparently, if we all just agree to not talk about it, the problem will go away, or no one will notice.
Well, The Oregonian noticed. And then Jack noticed. And then we noticed. Will enough people notice? Or enough of the right people?
As Jack bluntly says: "But where is the Oregon attorney general? Where is the League of Women Voters? Where is the editorial board of The Oregonian? Where is Lars Larson?"
Update
As directed by a reader comment to this item, we checked today's Oregonian for something we apparently managed to miss. One of today's editorials weighs in:
Kafoury and Kruse, at least, are honest about where they actually live. Kafoury now resides in a Southeast Portland home that belonged to her grandmother, who died in September. Kruse has moved back to a Roseburg-area farm to establish residency and run for the Oregon Senate.
As the editorial points out, the problem now is that they don't live in the districts they represent. It also points out their rationalizations. Then it takes the blunt approach:
"That's all well and good, but the law makes no exceptions, even for lawmakers who just want to cling to their political importance a while longer," the editorial says. "Kruse and Kafoury should promptly resign."
Comments (5)
reader on 27 Feb 2004
In answer to the penultimate question, try Page C6 of Friday's Metro section.
The One True b!X on 27 Feb 2004
Unfortunately, I no longer have today's paper.
The One True b!X on 27 Feb 2004
Oh, hell. Yes I do. Update forthcoming.
reader on 27 Feb 2004
Also, look at, I think, page 2 of tomorrow's Metro. Kruse apparently quit, and Kafoury says she will.
The One True b!X on 27 Feb 2004
Can someone verify for me that the story says Kruse has and Kafoury will, and not the other way around? The Plaid Pantry up the street doesn't have tomorrow's paper yet.