Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010 (2026)

Criteria for apportionment of state into congressional and legislative districts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      188.010 Criteria for apportionment of state into congressional and legislative districts. The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall consider the following criteria when apportioning the state into congressional and legislative districts:

      (1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall:

      (a) Be contiguous;

      (b) Be of equal population;

      (c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries;

      (d) Not divide communities of common interest; and

      (e) Be connected by transportation links.

      (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.

      (3) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group.

      (4) Two state House of Representatives districts shall be wholly included within a single state senatorial district. [1979 c.667 §1; 1981 c.864 §2]

      188.015 [1989 c.114 §1; 1997 c.249 §55; renumbered 188.025 in 2015]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). · cites it 35× “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Ater v. Keisling, 819 P.2d 296 (Or. 1991). · cites it 40× “In 1981, this court specifically rejected challenges based on ORS 188.010, which sets forth criteria for the Legislative Assembly and the Secretary to follow in making a legislative reapportionment, and held that "our original jurisdiction under art IV, section 6(2) is to review…”
McCall v. Legislative Assembly, 634 P.2d 223 (Or. 1981). · cites it 10× “667, now ORS 188.010, the legislature stated: "The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall consider the following criteria when apportioning the state into congressional and legislative districts: "(1) Each district, as nearly as…”
Cargo v. Paulus, 635 P.2d 367 (Or. 1981). · cites it 11× “The other contention by petitioner Cargo, as well as by petitioner Goldstein, that must be considered is that the Secretary's draft does not comply with ORS 188.010. ORS 188.010 was enacted by the 1979 legislature and begins, "The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State,…”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012). · cites it 2× “Comp. Stat. 120/5-5(a), (d); Iowa Code § 42.”
Fletchall v. Rosenblum, 442 P.3d 193 (Or. 2019). · cites it 8× “The "laws applicable thereto" include ORS 188.010, which directs the legislature (or the Secretary of State) to apportion districts using certain specified criteria, including a requirement that districts be drawn in a way that does not "divide communities of common interest,"…”
Perrin v. Kitzhaber, 83 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “See ORS 188.010. 1 Predictably, the *443 Democratic and Republican parties offered contending solutions.”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). · cites it 35× “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
Corinne Brown v. Sec'y of State of the State of Florida, 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012). “§ 5-1-115 (prohibiting congressional districts drawn to favor a political party or incumbent, and forbidding the consideration of information such as incumbents’ addresses or voters’ party affiliations); Or.Rev.Stat. § 188.010 (requiring congressional districts, as nearly as…”
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The purpose of the vehicle code is “[t]o provide maxi- mum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state[.”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B, 89 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 2012). “”); Or.Rev.Stat. § 188.010(2) ("No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.”
Linder v. Keisling, 821 P.2d 1089 (Or. 1991). · cites it 6× “The statute, ORS 188.010(1), provides: “The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall consider the following criteria when apportioning the state into congressional and legislative districts: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable,…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(1) — 7 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Ater v. Keisling, 819 P.2d 296 (Or. 1991). “In 1981, this court specifically rejected challenges based on ORS 188.010, which sets forth criteria for the Legislative Assembly and the Secretary to follow in making a legislative reapportionment, and held that "our original jurisdiction under art IV, section 6(2) is to review…”
State v. Little, 533 P.3d 1107 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “The purpose of the vehicle code is “[t]o provide maxi- mum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state[.”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
Perrin v. Kitzhaber, 83 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “See ORS 188.010. 1 Predictably, the *443 Democratic and Republican parties offered contending solutions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(1)(a) — 1 case
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(1)(b) — 2 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(1)(c) — 3 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Ater v. Keisling, 819 P.2d 296 (Or. 1991). “In 1981, this court specifically rejected challenges based on ORS 188.010, which sets forth criteria for the Legislative Assembly and the Secretary to follow in making a legislative reapportionment, and held that "our original jurisdiction under art IV, section 6(2) is to review…”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(1)(d) — 3 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Fletchall v. Rosenblum, 442 P.3d 193 (Or. 2019). “The "laws applicable thereto" include ORS 188.010, which directs the legislature (or the Secretary of State) to apportion districts using certain specified criteria, including a requirement that districts be drawn in a way that does not "divide communities of common interest,"…”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(1)(e) — 2 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(2) — 4 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012). “Comp. Stat. 120/5-5(a), (d); Iowa Code § 42.”
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021). “ORS 188.010 sets out criteria that the legislature (or Secretary of State, if applicable) “shall consider”: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: “(a) Be contiguous; “(b) Be of equal population; “(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; “(d) Not…”
In re Senate Jt. Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B, 89 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 2012). “”); Or.Rev.Stat. § 188.010(2) ("No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(3) — 1 case
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(4) — 1 case
Ater v. Keisling, 819 P.2d 296 (Or. 1991). “In 1981, this court specifically rejected challenges based on ORS 188.010, which sets forth criteria for the Legislative Assembly and the Secretary to follow in making a legislative reapportionment, and held that "our original jurisdiction under art IV, section 6(2) is to review…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(l)(b) — 1 case
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(l)(c) — 3 cases
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Ater v. Keisling, 819 P.2d 296 (Or. 1991). “In 1981, this court specifically rejected challenges based on ORS 188.010, which sets forth criteria for the Legislative Assembly and the Secretary to follow in making a legislative reapportionment, and held that "our original jurisdiction under art IV, section 6(2) is to review…”
Linder v. Keisling, 821 P.2d 1089 (Or. 1991). “The statute, ORS 188.010(1), provides: “The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall consider the following criteria when apportioning the state into congressional and legislative districts: “(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010(l)(d) — 1 case
Hartung v. Bradbury, 33 P.3d 972 (Or. 2001). “A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.