Narrative Opinion Summary
The concurrence by Judge Van Hoomissen expresses agreement with the decision to dismiss the appeal as moot, following the Supreme Court's directive. However, he argues that such a dismissal does not serve judicial economy. He highlights that the court found the plaintiffs' proposed plan did not violate ORS 260.665(2)(a) and asserted that the case is not moot, referencing Oregon Republican Party v. State of Oregon to support this conclusion. Van Hoomissen points out that no party involved argued the case was moot, suggesting the Supreme Court could have addressed the merits of the case instead. He raises concerns that political parties, campaign committees, candidates, and public officials are left uncertain about the legality of the proposed conduct, potentially leading to increased litigation, costs, and delays due to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Appeal as Mootsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed following the Supreme Court's directive, despite arguments that such dismissal does not benefit judicial economy.
Reasoning: The concurrence by Judge Van Hoomissen expresses agreement with the decision to dismiss the appeal as moot, following the Supreme Court's directive.
Judicial Economy and Mootnesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Van Hoomissen argues that dismissing the appeal as moot is counterproductive to judicial economy, suggesting that the merits of the case should have been addressed.
Reasoning: However, he argues that such a dismissal does not serve judicial economy.
Legal Certainty and Potential Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dismissal leaves political entities uncertain about the legality of their actions, which could result in increased litigation, costs, and delays.
Reasoning: He raises concerns that political parties, campaign committees, candidates, and public officials are left uncertain about the legality of the proposed conduct, potentially leading to increased litigation, costs, and delays due to the Supreme Court's ruling.
Non-Mootness Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Van Hoomissen references Oregon Republican Party v. State of Oregon to argue that the case was not moot, highlighting that no party argued for mootness.
Reasoning: He highlights that the court found the plaintiffs' proposed plan did not violate ORS 260.665(2)(a) and asserted that the case is not moot, referencing Oregon Republican Party v. State of Oregon to support this conclusion.