Higgins v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Branch

I concur with the lead opinion’s decision, but not with its analysis. The problem with its analysis is that it refuses to apply the methodology announced in State v. Robertson, 293 Or 402, 649 P2d 569 (1982). Because the Robertson methodology applies to any statute or regulation, this court cannot simply ignore Robertson because it is convenient to do so. However, I would hold that the challenged regulations do not violate petitioner’s rights under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, and, thus, I concur.1

Article I, section 8, prohibits any law “restricting the right to speak,…