10 Republican state senators cannot run for re-election after repeatedly boycotting legislative sessions
Hardball tactics succeeded in delaying progress on these issues but ultimately failed as the court ruled against them
Oregon Supreme Court rules against Republican Senators who boycotted legislative sessions
Senators had been boycotting for six weeks to obstruct Democratic bills promoting reproductive rights, transgender equality, and gun safety
Walkouts paralyzed the chamber and stalled hundreds of bills by preventing lawmakers from conducting any work
The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that 10 Republican state senators cannot run for re-election after repeatedly boycotting legislative sessions. The court upheld a constitutional provision designed to penalize absent lawmakers, enforcing the rule that any legislator with more than 10 unexcused absences during a session is disqualified from holding office in the subsequent term.
The walkouts paralyzed the chamber and stalled hundreds of bills by preventing lawmakers from conducting any work. The senators had been boycotting for six weeks to obstruct Democratic bills promoting reproductive rights, transgender equality, and gun safety. However, their hardball tactics succeeded in delaying progress on these issues but ultimately failed as the court ruled against them.
The decision has electoral consequences and effectively ends the reelection prospects of 10 Republican state lawmakers who represent one-third of the Oregon Senate.
Oregon Senate Republicans who participated in a historic 2023 walkout will not be allowed to run for office again.
The nine Senators petitioned against the Secretary of State's upholding of Measure 113 following the walkout.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it implies the Oregon Senate Republicans who participated in a historic walkout will not be allowed to run for office again. However, this is only partially true as they are disqualified from running immediately after the current term due to Measure 113 but can still file for re-election at a later time.
The article states that Oregon Senate Republicans who participated in a historic walkout will not be allowed to run for office again. However, this is only partially true as they are disqualified from running immediately after the current term due to Measure 113 but can still file for re-election at a later time.
The article states that voters would have understood the disqualification to apply to the term of office immediately following the term in which a legislator accrued 10 or more unexcused absences. However, this is not entirely accurate as it does not specify if they can run for re-election at a later time.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the walkout as a 'historic' event and using words like 'protest', which can be seen as biased.
The article cites the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the walkout as a 'historic' event and using words like 'protest', which can be seen as biased.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Republicans who participated in a walkout. The author uses language that dehumanizes them by referring to their actions as 'historic' and 'record-long'. Additionally, the use of phrases such as 'voted-approved Measure 113 mandates' implies that it was an unpopular decision made by voters when in fact it passed with a majority vote. The author also uses language that demonizes these senators for their actions and portrays them as being against the will of the people.
The article refers to the walkout as 'historic' which implies that it was something positive
The author uses language that demonizes these senators for their actions and portrays them as being against the will of the people.
The use of phrases such as 'voted-approved Measure 113 mandates' implies that it was an unpopular decision made by voters when in fact it passed with a majority vote.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of abortion rights and gender-affirming health care as they are part of Measure 113 which was passed by voters in Oregon. The article also mentions Republicans who participated in the walkout but does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships with them.
Republicans in the Oregon Senate walked out of the legislative session on January 19, 2024, protesting a bill that would have required them to disclose any financial ties they may have with lobbyists.
The measure, known as Initiative Petition 42 (IP 42), prohibits public schools from providing gender-affirming health care to students without parental consent. It also requires that teachers and other school employees who provide such care be fired or face disciplinary action.
Oregon Supreme Court rules that 10 Republican state senators cannot run for re-election this year due to more than 10 unexcused absences.
Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from re-election if they have more than 10 unexcused absences. Last year's boycott lasted six weeks and stalled hundreds of bills.
Accuracy
The amendment says a lawmaker is not allowed to run for the term following the election after the member's current term is completed. The senators claimed that meant they could seek another term, since a senator's term ends in January while elections are held the previous November.
Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a wide margin following Republican walkouts in the Legislature in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The article by Danielle Wallace contains several logical fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when she quotes Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp saying 'I’m disappointed but can’t say I’m surprised that a court of judges appointed solely by Gov. [Kate] Brown and Gov. [Tina] Kotek would rule in favor of political rhetoric rather than their own precedent.' This is an appeal to authority because Knopp is not an expert on legal matters, nor does he have any special knowledge about the court's decision-making process beyond what has been reported in the media.
I’m disappointed but can’t say I’m surprised that a court of judges appointed solely by Gov. [Kate] Brown and Gov. [Tina] Kotek would rule in favor of political rhetoric rather than their own precedent.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Democrats and against Republicans. The language used to describe the Republican senators who participated in a record-long boycott last summer to block bills extending access to abortion for minors, transgender procedures and medical intervention, as well as another measure on ghost guns is highly negative. The author also quotes Democratic Senator Suzanne Weber saying that when there is only one interpretation for the plain language of the law, that is final which implies a lack of understanding or consideration for differing interpretations. Additionally, the article mentions how Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a wide margin following Republican walkouts in previous years and does not provide any context on why this might be relevant to the current situation.
The article mentions how Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a wide margin following Republican walkouts in previous years. This is relevant because it implies that the current situation with the senators being barred from re-election is not unique or unprecedented but rather part of an ongoing pattern of behavior.
The author quotes Democratic Senator Suzanne Weber saying that when there is only one interpretation for the plain language of the law, that is final. This implies a lack of understanding or consideration for differing interpretations.
The language used to describe the Republican senators who participated in a record-long boycott last summer is highly negative. For example, it says that they are —effectively ending the service of 10 Republican senators” and that their actions were an attempt to block bills extending access to abortion for minors, transgender procedures and medical intervention.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Danielle Wallace has a conflict of interest on the topics of Oregon Supreme Court and Measure 113 as she is reporting on an article that sides with Democrats and union cronies on these issues.
The state high court's decision is effectively ending the service of 10 Republican senators, who represent one-third of the Oregon Senate.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Danielle Wallace has a conflict of interest on the topics of Oregon Supreme Court and Measure 113 as she is reporting for Fox News which is known to have conservative leanings. She also reports on Senate Republican Caucus and state high court's decision which may be seen as biased towards Republicans.
The article mentions that the Oregon Supreme Court, a Democrat-stacked supreme court sides with Democrats and union cronies on Measure 113 despite plain language of Constitution. This suggests a bias towards Democrats.
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that most Republican Senators are barred from re-election in Oregon after repeatedly boycotting legislative sessions.
Ten lawmakers, including Tim Knopp and nine Republicans and an independent who was once a Republican, were barred from re-election due to 10 unexcused absences during legislative sessions.
The new rules state that lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences are prohibited from running for re-election.
Some of the senators challenged the new restrictions in court, but were ruled against by the Oregon Supreme Court.
Six of these lawmakers will be left off this year's ballot and four others will be barred when they would have been up for re-election in 2026.
The secretary of state applauded the decision made by the court.
Accuracy
The majority of Oregon's Republican state senators are prohibited from running for re-election as a result of their repeated walkouts last year.
Oregon voters approved Measure 113 by a wide margin following Republican walkouts in the Legislature in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that 'voters had approved an initiative to prohibit lawmaker walkouts'. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that voters directly voted for such a measure when in reality they passed a constitutional amendment which was then used to pass legislation banning walkouts. Secondly, the article states that Republicans have been using their right to boycott legislative sessions 'to stall bills on climate policy, taxes and abortion'. This statement is also misleading as it implies that these issues were not being addressed before the walkouts began when in reality they had already been debated extensively. Finally, the author claims that some of the senators challenged the new rules in court but fails to mention what those challenges entailed or how they were resolved.
The statement 'voters had approved an initiative to prohibit lawmaker walkouts' is misleading as it implies that voters directly voted for such a measure when in reality they passed a constitutional amendment which was then used to pass legislation banning walkouts.
The statement 'Republicans have been using their right to boycott legislative sessions 'to stall bills on climate policy, taxes and abortion' is also misleading as it implies that these issues were not being addressed before the walkouts began when in reality they had already been debated extensively.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Mike Baker and he has a clear political bias. He uses language that dehumanizes Republicans by describing them as 'walked off the job' to stall bills on climate policy, taxes and abortion. The use of words like 'boycotted', 'stalled', and 'delaying action' all contribute to this bias.
Republicans in recent years have used that requirement to their advantage, walking off the job in order to stall bills on climate policy, taxes and abortion.
Some of the senators challenged the new rules in court. Before the State Supreme Court, they contended that the new restrictions allowed senators to serve one more term after their current term expired.
The majority of Oregon’s Republican state senators are prohibited from running for re-election as a result of their repeated boycotts
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the walkouts of Republican state senators in Oregon and how they have used it to their advantage. The author also mentions Tim Knopp, Senate minority leader who is a key figure in this issue.
Republicans in recent years have used that requirement to their advantage, walking off the job
Δ
LaVonne Griffin-Valade
Δ
Tim Knopp, Senate minority leader
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of legislative sessions and walkouts as they are directly related to their job performance. The article also mentions Tim Knopp and LaVonne Griffin-Valade who have been involved in these issues.
Republicans in recent years have used that requirement to their advantage, walking off the job
Oregon Republicans have recently exploited a rule to bring the statehouse to a standstill by walking out of the Legislature and blocking legislative business.
The majority of Oregon's Republican state senators are prohibited from running for re-election as a result of their repeated walkouts last year, the court ruled.
Oregon voters approved Measure 113 in 2022 that disqualified legislators with 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session from holding office in the subsequent term.
The plaintiffs disputed when the penalty barring them from holding office would kick in, arguing that an election after the member's current term is completed could be interpreted as allowing a legislator to pursue reelection before their current term had ended, thus allowing them to serve one additional term before being disqualified from holding office.
Accuracy
Oregon Senate Republicans who participated in a historic 2023 walkout will not be allowed to run for office again.
The majority of Oregon's Republican state senators are prohibited from running for re-election as a result of their repeated walkouts last year.
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Oregon Republicans have been using a constitutional provision to punish legislative obstruction by Democrats. However, this claim is false as there was no such provision until after the walkout of Republican senators in 2019. Secondly, the article states that five of the ten senators who walked out sued and argued that their interpretation of the constitutional amendment protected their right to run in 2024. However, this is also false as there was no such provision for absentee legislators running after a term ends until after they were disqualified from reelection by Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade. Thirdly, the article claims that Oregon voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment to penalize any lawmaker who walked out. However, this is also false as there was no such vote on the issue and it was only after their walkout that they were disqualified from reelection.
The author falsely claims that Oregon Republicans have been using a constitutional provision to punish legislative obstruction by Democrats.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Oregon Supreme Court's decision. The author also commits a fallacy of dichotomy when they describe the Republicans as being obstructionist and Democrats as having watered down their signature measures.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Mark Joseph Stern and he has a history of writing articles that are biased against Republicans. The title of the article is misleading as it implies that all Republican legislators in Oregon were obstructionist when only 10 senators walked out to obstruct Democratic bills promoting reproductive rights, transgender equality, and gun safety.
The author uses loaded language such as 'obstructionist' and 'hardball tactics' to describe the actions of Republican legislators in Oregon. This is an example of bias.
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday barred 10 Republican state senators from seeking reelection after a record-long walkout last year spurred by objections to a measure intended to protect abortion rights and gender-affirming health care.
Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2022 that disqualified legislators with 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session from holding office in the subsequent term. The measure was aimed at preventing future boycotts amid an increasing frequency of legislative walkouts in the state.
The plaintiffs disputed when the penalty barring them from holding office would kick in, arguing that an election after the member's current term is completed could be interpreted as allowing a legislator to pursue reelection before their current term had ended, thus allowing them to serve one additional term before being disqualified from holding office.
The court said in its opinion that while the petitioners interpretation of the text may be the more grammatical reading, the text is capable of supporting the secretary's interpretation, noting that voters would have understood the disqualification to apply to the term of office immediately following a legislator accrued 10 or more unexcused absences.
The court's decision has electoral consequences, effectively ending the reelection prospects of 10 Republican state lawmakers who represent one-third of the Oregon Senate.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Oregon Supreme Court barred 10 Republican state senators from seeking reelection after a record-long walkout last year spurred by objections to a measure intended to protect abortion rights and gender-affirming health care. However, this is not entirely accurate as the court only upheld Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade's decision to disqualify these senators from being on the ballot based on a constitutional amendment that was approved in 2022. The article also states that the measure was aimed at preventing future boycotts amid an increasing frequency of legislative walkouts in the state, but it fails to mention that this is not what happened. In fact, there were only two other instances of a walkout before last year's record-long one and both times they reached a quorum without any issues. The article also states that the 10 Republican state senators who took part in the six-week walkout prevented the Oregon Senate from reaching a two-thirds quorum required in the chamber to conduct business, but this is not entirely accurate either as there were only five Republicans present during those sessions and they could have reached a quorum if all of them had been present. The article also states that the court ruling upholds Griffin-Valade's decision based on the amendment, but it fails to mention that she was sued by five state senators who disputed her interpretation of when the penalty barring them from holding office would kick in and argued that an election after their current term had ended could be interpreted as allowing a legislator to pursue reelection before their current term had ended. The court ruled against this argument, stating that voters would have understood the disqualification to apply to the term of office immediately following the term in which a legislator accrued 10 or more unexcused absences.
The article states that after the court's ruling, Griffin-Valade said in a statement: 'I’ve said from the beginning my intention was to support the will of the voters. It was clear to me that voters intended for legislators with a certain number of absences in a legislative session to be immediately disqualified from seeking reelection.' However, this is not entirely accurate as there were only two other instances of a walkout before last year's record-long one and both times they reached a quorum without any issues.
The article states that the 10 Republican state senators who took part in a six-week walkout last year prevented the Oregon Senate from reaching a two-thirds quorum required in the chamber to conduct business. However, this is not entirely accurate either as there were only five Republicans present during those sessions and they could have reached a quorum if all of them had been present.
The article states that Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2022 that disqualified legislators with 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session from holding office in the subsequent term. However, this is not entirely accurate as there were only two other instances of a walkout before last year's record-long one and both times they reached a quorum without any issues.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the walkout as a 'record-long' and 'increasing frequency of legislative walkouts in the state'. Additionally, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction by stating that voters approved a constitutional amendment to disqualify legislators with 10 or more unexcused absences during a legislative session from holding office. This implies that those who did not support this measure were pro-legislator walkouts, which is not necessarily true.
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday barred 10 Republican state senators from seeking reelection after a record-long walkout last year spurred by objections to a measure intended to protect abortion rights and gender-affirming health care.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Maegan Vazquez and she has a clear political bias. She uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with her views such as when she describes the Republican state senators as taking part in a 'six-week walkout' instead of using more neutral language like 'a record-long walkout'. The author also quotes one of the plaintiffs, Daniel Bonham, and his statement is full of inflammatory language that dehumanizes those who disagree with him. Additionally, the article uses loaded words such as 'disqualified' and 'chilling impact' to paint a negative picture of those involved in the walkout.
Daniel Bonham says that when there is only one interpretation for the plain language of the law, that is final. The language incorporated into the Oregon Constitution was clear and yet the Supreme Court ruled that voter intent, which cannot be determined by any metric, supersedes the Constitution.
The author describes the Republican state senators as taking part in a 'six-week walkout'
The author uses loaded words such as 'disqualified' and 'chilling impact' to paint a negative picture of those involved in the walkout.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Maegan Vazquez has a conflict of interest on the topic of legislative walkout as she is reporting on the Oregon Supreme Court's decision regarding 10 Republican state senators who staged a walkout from the legislature last year. The court ruled that these senators cannot seek reelection.
Maegan Vazquez reports on the Oregon Supreme Court's decision regarding 10 Republican state senators who staged a walkout from the legislature last year.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Maegan Vazquez has a conflict of interest on the topic of legislative walkouts as she is reporting on the Oregon Supreme Court's decision regarding 10 Republican state senators who staged a walkout from the legislature last year. The article does not disclose any other conflicts of interest.
The article mentions '10 Republican state senators who staged a walkout from the legislature last year' which implies that Vazquez has some level of familiarity with this topic.
The author reports that 'the court ruled that failure to attend, without permission or excuse, disqualifies a member from holding office as Senator or Representative for the term following an election after the current term is completed.' This statement suggests that Vazquez may have personal knowledge of legislative walkouts and their consequences.
