Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Domestic partner law under legal fire
Wednesday, July 09, 2008 | 1 comment(s)
More Stories in this Section
- Oil price down more than $8 in two days
- Comments accepted on new ATV rules
- Group pushes marijuana legalization initiative
- Sheriff investigating surfing collision
- Siemens cutting 17K jobs worldwide
- G-8 agrees to reduce emissions by 2050
- New Wimer Covered Bridge dedicated
More motels are catering to pet owners- Coquille police chief candidates ready for next step
- Poll: Pet owners prefer McCain over Obama
- Thermometer points to summertime highs
- Walk the coast with Goddard and Schultz
- Training available for volunteer firefighters
- ExpressJet may end Eugene to LA flight
- Foes of LNG call on state to say no
- Port looks to plant for revenues
- Erratic winds prompt new evacuations
- Surgeons reattach young surfer's arm
- Domestic partner law under legal fire
- Senate challenges the Pentagon's weapon plan
- Group finds problems with Nov. initiatives
- Salem officer crashes during pursuit
- Coos, Curry buck timber harvest fallout
- Repair? Scrap? CB building's fate is uncertain
- Blaze destroys home of former Coos Bay family
- Time to spruce up
- FTC may back off its nicotine guidance
- Attackers kill six outside U.S. consulate
- Man arrested in climb up N.Y. skyscraper
- Senate aims to overhaul eavesdropping regs
PORTLAND — Oregon’s domestic partnership law came under legal fire again Tuesday, as opponents tried to persuade three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that elections officials had wrongly disqualified the issue from the November ballot.
A ruling is expected by the end of the month in a case that could have implications that reach far beyond Oregon. Should the judges rule in favor of the law’s opponents, states throughout the West could be forced to re-evaluate the process by which citizen-backed initiatives and referrals qualify for the ballot.
At issue is the arcane elections practice of statistical sampling of the signatures turned in to put a such a measure on the ballot.
Rather than verify each signature to determine that there are enough to merit a position on the ballot, elections officials in most states — including Oregon — pull a sample of the signatures and check them against those on a voter’s registration card. Signatures that don’t match are thrown out.
In the case at hand, Lemons v. Bradbury, about 30 Oregon voters have argued that their signatures were disqualified improperly.
A ruling is expected by the end of the month in a case that could have implications that reach far beyond Oregon. Should the judges rule in favor of the law’s opponents, states throughout the West could be forced to re-evaluate the process by which citizen-backed initiatives and referrals qualify for the ballot.
At issue is the arcane elections practice of statistical sampling of the signatures turned in to put a such a measure on the ballot.
Rather than verify each signature to determine that there are enough to merit a position on the ballot, elections officials in most states — including Oregon — pull a sample of the signatures and check them against those on a voter’s registration card. Signatures that don’t match are thrown out.
In the case at hand, Lemons v. Bradbury, about 30 Oregon voters have argued that their signatures were disqualified improperly.
The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Not already registered?
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines