Case: Re v. Oregon

Named plaintiff, an attorney, filed suit against the State of Oregon on June 28, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon alleging that the system for voting and electing officials in Oregon was unconstitutional. Plaintiff claimed that the state's employee pension and retirement system (PERS) negatively impacted the public, but the public was unable to support a candidate for election as a justice of the Oregon Supreme Court who he alleged was not biased or otherwise a participant in the PERS system (since some judges periodically hear cases regarding PERS under the rule of necessity). The Oregon voting system required elected judges to join the PERS system. In plaintiff's view, joining PERS was tantamount to joining a class of individuals sharing a common ideology, like the NRA or a religious organization. Plaintiff believed he had a right to have the opportunity to vote for someone who is not required to join the PERS system the moment they take office and that his inability to do so deprived him of Equal Protection and First Amendment freedom of association. Plaintiff made his claim via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oregon state law. 

Plaintiff sought a declaration that the provision of the Oregon state statutes establishing the PERS system is unconstitutional, along with an injunction preventing its application. Plaintiff also sought nominal damages and attorney fees. The case was assigned to district judge Ann L. Aiken and magistrate judge Thomas Coffin. 

After defendant filed a motion to dismiss, the magistrate judge handling the case issued a finding and recommendation to dismiss the claims on February 19, 2016, on several bases. First, plaintiff's damages claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider alleged violations of the right of judges or judicial candidates. The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff lacked standing as a voter. He did not show any way in which his actual voting rights or ability to select a candidate of his choosing had been affected by the PERS system. His claims were also not ripe because he failed to show anything that has precluded or will imminently preclude his voting rights.

The court issued an order on April 17, 2016, dismissing the claims and agreeing with the magistrate judge. The court found that his claims were simply "generalized grievances" and that the Oregon state legislature would be the proper body with which to take up his issues.

The case was closed on April 18, 2016.