Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.621 (2026)

Disincorporation procedure; petition; election

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

      221.621 Disincorporation procedure; petition; election. (1) This section establishes the procedure for determining whether a city shall disincorporate. The question shall be decided by election. The governing body of the city shall call an election when a petition is filed as provided in this section.

      (2) The requirements for preparing, circulating and filing a petition and calling an election under this section shall be as provided for an initiative measure under ORS 250.265 to 250.346, except that notwithstanding ORS 250.325, the governing body of the city shall not consider adoption or rejection of the measure before submitting it to the electors.

      (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, if ORS 250.255 makes ORS 250.265 to 250.346 inapplicable to a city, the requirements for preparing, circulating and filing a petition under this section shall be as provided for an initiative petition under the city charter or an ordinance adopted under the city charter.

      (4) The question of disincorporation shall be submitted to the electors of the city at an election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in any year, but shall not be submitted more than once in two consecutive calendar years. [1983 c.350 §27 (enacted in lieu of 221.620, 221.630, 221.640 and 221.660); 1987 c.784 §1]

 

      221.630 [Repealed by 1983 c.350 §26 (221.621 enacted in lieu of 221.620, 221.630, 221.640 and 221.660)]

 

      221.640 [Repealed by 1983 c.350 §26 (221.621 enacted in lieu of 221.620, 221.630, 221.640 and 221.660)]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2021 · leading case: De Young v. Brown, 443 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
De Young v. Brown, 443 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 40× “In three assignments of error, plaintiff challenges the trial court's summary judgment ruling and reprises his arguments that Measure 93 violates various provisions of *358 organic and statutory law. Specifically, plaintiff contends that Measure 93 violates (1) Article IV,…”
City of Damascus v. State of Oregon, 472 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020). · cites it 23× “610 and ORS 221.621, failed, the 2015 Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill (HB) 3085 (2015), which referred a disincorpora- tion measure—Measure 93—to the city’s voters, to be voted on in an election requiring only a majority of those voting.”
De Young v. Brown, 486 P.3d 740 (Or. 2021). · cites it 2× “610 and ORS 221.621 (2013) provided the only means by which a city could disincorporate and that, because Measure 93 had not complied with those statutes, it was invalid.”
De Young v. Brown, 451 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “610 and ORS 221.621, which provide the only means for a city to disincorporate, and that the legislature did not effectively exempt Ballot Measure 93 from the requirements of those statutes or otherwise provide an alternative means of disin- corporation).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.621(1) — 1 case
De Young v. Brown, 443 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “In three assignments of error, plaintiff challenges the trial court's summary judgment ruling and reprises his arguments that Measure 93 violates various provisions of *358 organic and statutory law. Specifically, plaintiff contends that Measure 93 violates (1) Article IV,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.621(2) — 1 case
De Young v. Brown, 443 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “In three assignments of error, plaintiff challenges the trial court's summary judgment ruling and reprises his arguments that Measure 93 violates various provisions of *358 organic and statutory law. Specifically, plaintiff contends that Measure 93 violates (1) Article IV,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 221.621(4) — 1 case
De Young v. Brown, 443 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “In three assignments of error, plaintiff challenges the trial court's summary judgment ruling and reprises his arguments that Measure 93 violates various provisions of *358 organic and statutory law. Specifically, plaintiff contends that Measure 93 violates (1) Article IV,…”
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.