[CRNMC] Fwd: regarding single subject rule

[Kelly Larson]

Hi Karina,

This is very hopeful.  As I read it, the community rights ordinance in
Oregon is still in appeal, and the one in Colorado was decided to have
adhered to the single subject rule by the Colorado State Supreme Court.

The piece I think is essential for me to remember from this is that:

each part of the ordinance contributes to and is integral to the single
subject of* empowering local governments to assert the people's right to
community self-government in protection of their fundamental rights.  *(In
the words of the Colorado Supreme Court.)

Thank you so much for following this so closely and relating it to us.
This is giving me ground to work from!

Blessings,
Kelly


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ben's response to my question about Oregon. This (bolded and enlarged)
> sounds like the way to frame the single subject question, especially since
> it passed the test in Oregon. We will need this for our rebuttal arguments,
> due 8/27.
>
> For now, we need to focus on the "Argument For" which is due on 8/20.
> Karina
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Ben Price <benprice at celdf.org>
> *Date: *August 14, 2014 5:31:36 AM PDT
> *To: *karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Shannon Biggs <shannon at globalexchange.org>
> *Subject: **Re: regarding single subject rule*
>
> Karina,
>
> Many states and localities have single subject rules. The question is,
> what is a single subject? The answer is that while there must be one
> overarching purpose to the legislation, it may include various necessary
> components to accomplish the single intent. In Oregon, opponents of
> community bills of rights have erroneously argued that measures proposed by
> citizens cover more than one subject, and those arguments continue on
> appeal. Then again, in Colorado, proponents for a state constitutional
> amendment, the Community Bill of Rights amendment, went through two levels
> of state review: the legislative review board, the title board, only to be
> challenged on the single subject rule at the title board level. The
> proponents won on the single subject question by unanimous title board
> vote. Then the corporate boys appealed to the state supreme court and*
> the judges ruled unanimously that the measure did indeed adhere to the
> single subject rule because each part (including subordinating corporations
> to community governance, enumerating certain rights, prohibiting certain
> rights-violating corporate activities etc) contributed to and was integral
> to the single subject of empowering local governments to assert the
> people's right to community self-government in protection of their
> fundamental rights.*
>
> Ben
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:31 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *Does Oregon really have a single subject rule?   Ben, can you verify
>> that for us, please?*
>>
>> *Thanks,*
>> *Karina*
>> *ordinance proponent*
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140814/7b0061e3/attachment.html