Legal Opinion
Ater v. Keisling
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided October 15, 1991No. S38475 to S38479PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*210PETERSON, J.
The Oregon Constitution requires that, following each federal decennial census, the “Senators and Representatives shall be * * * apportioned among legislative districts according to population.” Or Const, Art IV, § 6(1). If the Legislative Assembly fails to enact a reapportionment, the task falls to the Secretary of State (Secretary). Or Const, Art IV, § 6(3). The 1991 Legislative Assembly failed to enact a reapportionment; therefore, the Secretary did so and filed his reapportionment plan with this court on August 14, 1991.
Original jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court “to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McCall v. Legislative AssemblyOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- Hovet v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- In Re Legislative ApportionmentOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- In Re Legislative ApportionmentOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- Cargo v. PaulusOregon Supreme Court · 1981
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wilson v. EuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Stupek v. Wyle Laboratories Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Fonfara v. Reapportionment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Hartung v. BradburyOregon Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re Reapportionment of Town of HartlandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.