188.016
Required hearings for apportionment of state into congressional and legislative
districts; conduct of hearings.
(1) When apportioning the state into congressional or legislative districts,
the Legislative Assembly shall hold at least 10 public hearings at locations
throughout the state prior to proposing a reapportionment plan.
(2) In addition
to the hearings required under subsection (1) of this section, the Legislative
Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall:
(a) To the extent
practicable, hold six public hearings after a reapportionment plan is proposed,
but before the plan is adopted. The adoption of a reapportionment plan may not
be delayed by the impracticability of holding one or more of the hearings required
under this subsection.
(b) Conduct the
hearings required under this subsection either in six different congressional
districts of this state or with the use of videoconferencing technologies that
permit active citizen participation throughout the state.
(3) In holding
the hearings required under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the
Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, must:
(a) Provide
appropriate public notice of the time and location of each hearing;
(b) Hold at least
one hearing required under subsection (1) of this section in each congressional
district of this state;
(c) Hold at least
one hearing required under subsection (1) of this section and one hearing
required under subsection (2) of this section in areas that have experienced
the largest shifts in population since the previous reapportionment, and
prioritize holding additional public hearings in these areas; and
(d) Permit and
make provision for individuals at remote sites throughout the state to provide
public testimony at the hearings through the use of video equipment. [2015
c.257 §2; 2023 c.604 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 14× “010(2) that no district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party or an incumbent, as well as the public hearing requirements in ORS 188.016. They asked that a specified reapportionment map that had been submitted by a member of the public during the…”
Fletchall v. Rosenblum, 442 P.3d 193 (Or. 2019).
“010(1)(d), and ORS 188.016, which requires the legislature to hold at least 10 public hearings at locations throughout the state prior to proposing a reapportionment plan, and at least five more public hearings before finally adopting the plan that is proposed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.016(1) — 1 case
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021).
“010(2) that no district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party or an incumbent, as well as the public hearing requirements in ORS 188.016. They asked that a specified reapportionment map that had been submitted by a member of the public during the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.016(2) — 1 case
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021).
“010(2) that no district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party or an incumbent, as well as the public hearing requirements in ORS 188.016. They asked that a specified reapportionment map that had been submitted by a member of the public during the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.016(3)(b) — 1 case
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021).
“010(2) that no district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party or an incumbent, as well as the public hearing requirements in ORS 188.016. They asked that a specified reapportionment map that had been submitted by a member of the public during the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.016(3)(c) — 1 case
Sheehan/Calderwood v. Legislative Assembly, 499 P.3d 1267 (Or. 2021).
“010(2) that no district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party or an incumbent, as well as the public hearing requirements in ORS 188.016. They asked that a specified reapportionment map that had been submitted by a member of the public during the…”
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.