|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Marquis Couey v. Kate Brown|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Linda K. Williams v. Daniel W. Meek on behalf of Marquis Couey|
Rolf Moan on behalf of Kate Brown
Statement of Issues:
|Marquis Couey v. Kate Brown (S061650) (A148473) (appeal from Marion County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 257 Or App 434, 306 P3d 778 (2013)).|
Plaintiff, Marquis Couey, has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, Secretary of State Kate Brown, on the basis that plaintiff's declaratory judgment action, although justiciable at the time it was filed, had become moot.
On review, the issue are:
(1) Does an overbreadth challenge to an elections law limiting political speech by paid petitioners, if based on a record showing harms to plaintiff and others, remain justiciable under both the Oregon and federal constitutions, regardless of the expiration of the election cycle during which the claim arose?
(2) Did plaintiff's ORS 28.010 claim become moot, even if plaintiff had offered unrefuted evidence that:
(a) the Secretary of State will continue enforcement;
(b) the injuries continue or are likely to recur; and
(c) the requested relief will resolve uncertainty?
(3) Do ORS 246.910(1) and/or ORS 28.010 and/or 42 USC § 1983 confer continued standing on an aggrieved party to continue an elections law challenge after the expiration of an election cycle?
(4) Does the failure to request expedited review under ORS 260.910(4):
(a) render a challenge under ORS 260.910(1) moot upon expiration of the election cycle; or
(b) preclude the injured party from invoking ORS 14.175 in
connection with standing under ORS 246.910(1), ORS 28.010, and/or 42 USC § 1983?
(5) If the Secretary of State will enforce the challenged statute in future
election cycles and evidence shows that plaintiff will come within the Secretary of State's enforcement jurisdiction, is it error to find that the "capable of repetition, likely to evade review" prong of ORS 14.175 is not fulfilled?
(6) May the Court of Appeals refrain from ruling on the applicability of ORS 14.175, based on its concern that the statute may be unconstitutional, if the issue of constitutionality was neither raised nor briefed by the parties?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: