Review of Asian and Pacific Studies No. 39 101 Oregon Direct Democracy and the Role of the Judiciary in America: Oregon Initiatives and the Single Subject Rule * Keisuke Mark Abe Abstract Unlike the United States Constitution, which has been amended only twentyseven times since its adoption in 1787, state constitutions are generally easy to reform and have been changed quite often throughout American history. As the validity of a state constitutional amendment is frequently challenged in court, state judiciaries play a significant role in monitoring the process of constitutional changes. One of the typical situations in which the court steps in to issue an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing an otherwise effective constitutional amendment is when it actually contains two or more amendments, despite having been presented to the voters in the form of a single constitutional amendment. This so-called single subject rule is designed to prevent voter confusion and ballot manipulation. Relying on state constitutional provisions embodying this rule, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated a comprehensive constitutional amendment that would have established a variety of crime victims rights, placed before the voters through an initiative petition and approved by a 59 to 41 percent margin. The decision can be best understood as an expression of the state supreme court s commitment to the rule of law, according to which constitutional discourse about individual rights should not be dominated by populist politics. I.はじめに * Faculty of Law, Seikei University E-mail: abekei@law.seikei.ac.jp
102 1 II.Armatta v. Kitzhaber 2 犯 罪 被 害 者 のさまざまな 権 利 を 規 定 する 州 憲 法 修 正 案 と 単 一 主 題 のルール 1. 事 実 Oregon P 1996 Measure 40 Measure 40 Oregon 1 crime victims rights 3 Measure 40 9 1 14 4 2 Measure 40 Oregon 3 Measure 40 5 4 Measure 40 5 8 Measure 40 victim 6 relevant evidence 7 Measure 40 9 Measure 40 8 P Measure 40 amendments 9 Oregon 17 1 4 1 2 d Oregon 1 3 651 1995 2 959 P.2d 49 (Or. 1998). 3 Id. at 50. 4 See id. at 51-52. 5 See id. at 52. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 See id. 9 Id. at 51.
103 revised, rather than amended 10 17 2 D1 Measure 40 D2 D3 Measure 40 11 1 Measure 40 2 Measure 40 D2 D3 2 D2 D1 P D3 P 2 3000 12 1 P Oregon 13 2. 争 点 1 Measure 40 Oregon 2 P D3 3. 結 論 理 由 づけ Carson 1 2 4 14 1 a Oregon 17 1 2 in the manner aforesaid 15 D3 10 Id. revise revision amend amendment Louisiana 13 Constitutional Revision Amendments See LA. CONST. art. XIII, 1. Nebraska 16 Amendments revise, amend, or change convention See NEB. CONST. art. XVI, 2. 11 See Armatta, 959 P.2d at 51. 12 See id. 13 See id. 14 Oregon 7 6 1 6 2 Durham 5 15 OR. CONST. art. XVII, 1.
104 1 2 amendment or amendments, severally 16 Oregon 17 1 17 b Indiana Oregon Indiana amendment 18 Oregon D3 Oregon 4 1 2 d 17 1 4 1 2 d 4 1 2 d 17 1 19 c Measure 40 17 1 2 two or more amendments 20 Measure 40 2 Measure 40 4 5 Oregon Measure 40 Oregon 17 1 Measure 40 21 2 16 Id. 17 Baum v. Newbry, 267 P.2d 220 (Or. 1954). 18 Armatta, 959 P.2d at 58. 19 See id. at 63-64. 20 Id. at 64. 21 See id. at 69.
105 prevailing party 22 P D3 P 23 3 Durham 24 III. 連 邦 憲 法 の 改 正 州 憲 法 の 改 正 1787 1788 27 1 10 Bill of Rights 1 1789 1791 220 17 25 10 1 5 3 2 26 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 1972 14 1 4 3 38 19 50 22 2 Georgia 9 Louisiana 10 9700 6300 California South Carolina 22 Id. 23 See id. at 71. 24 See id. at 72-75 (Durham, J., concurring). 25 19 18 26 20 1865 1870 13 15 18 1919 21 1933 1 20 1 3 20 1933 22 1951 26 See Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798) 11
106 500 Alabama 600 27 1 42 28 3 3 2 Wisconsin 29 3 2 Virginia 42 Illinois Michigan New York 13 230 2 3 2 Delaware 49 Delaware 3 2 3 19 Florida 15 9 9 3 37 20 1 30 Utah 31 32 4 Armatta 27 Louisiana 1921 1974 536 See Mark T. Carleton, Elitism Sustained: The Louisiana Constitution of 1974, 54 TUL. L. REV. 560, 560 (1980). 28 See, e.g., Stander v. Kelley, 250 A.2d 474, 478-79 (Pa. 1969), appeal dismissed sub nom. Lindsay v. Kelley, 395 U.S. 827 (1969) (per curiam); In re Opinion to the Governor, 178 A. 433, 438 (R.I. 1935). 29 South Dakota 4 3 30 See FL. CONST. art. XI, 2. 31 See UTAH CODE ANN. 63I-3-201 (2014). 32 2008 87 89
107 IV.アメリカ 憲 法 の 中 の 直 接 民 主 主 義 の 要 素 背 景 制 度 の 実 際 1890 1910 Progressivism 33 1898 South Dakota 1918 22 24 6 Washington 3 Florida 15 California Oregon 18 34 24 24 24 9 6 Armatta Oregon 1902 3 Oregon 1904 50 1 1 6.6 Oregon 8 35 4 30 V. 手 続 をめぐる 問 題 修 正 か 全 部 改 正 か 単 一 の 主 題 を 扱 っているか 33 45-47 297-300 1980 34 Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Illinois Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota 35 See OR. CONST. art. IV, 1. 6 See id.
108 political question 36 Iowa 37 Armatta California California California California 38 Florida 39 Measure 40 2 Oregon 1 California Florida Oregon 1 2 Oregon 17 1 Armatta Armatta Armatta Oregon 36 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939). 37 State ex rel. Bailey v. Brookhart, 84 N.W. 1064 (Iowa 1901) (per curiam). 38 Raven v. Deukmejian, 801 P.2d 1077 (Cal. 1990). 39 Adams v. Gunter, 238 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1970).
109 参 考 文 献 1995 3 1980 1980 2012 5 2012 5 2008 2008-1 87-94 Carleton, Mark T. 1980. Elitism Sustained: The Louisiana Constitution of 1974. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 54: 560-588. Colantuono, Michael G. 1987. The Revision of American State Constitutions: Legislative Power, Popular Sovereignty, and Constitutional Change. California Law Review, Vol. 75: 1473-1512. Cooley, Thomas M. 1931. The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Dealey, James Quayle 1915. Growth of American State Constitutions: From 1776 to the End of the Year 1914, Boston: Ginn & Co. Dodd, Walter Fairleigh 1910. The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Finkelman, Paul and Stephen E. Gottlieb (eds.) 1991. Toward a Usable Past: Liberty Under State Constitutions, Athens: University of Georgia Press. Friedelbaum, Stanley H. (ed.) 1988. Human Rights in the States: New Directions in Constitutional Policymaking, New York: Greenwood Press. Jameson, John Alexander 1887. A Treatise on Constitutional Conventions: Their History, Powers, and Modes of Proceeding, Chicago: Callaghan & Co. Lehne, Richard 1978. The Quest for Justice: The Politics of School Finance Reform, New York: Longman. Linde, Hans E. 1984. E Pluribus: Constitutional Theory and State Courts. Georgia Law Review, Vol. 18: 165-200. Tarr, G. Alan and Mary Cornelia Aldis Porter 1988. State Supreme Courts in State and Nation, New Haven: Yale University Press. Tarr, G. Alan 1998. Understanding State Constitutions, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tribe, Laurence H. 1985. Constitutional Choices, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Williams, Robert F. 1996. Are State Constitutional Conventions Things of the Past?: The Increasing Role of the Constitutional Commission in State Constitutional Change. Hofstra Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 1: 1-26. Willoughby, Westel Woodbury 1929. The Constitutional Law of the United States, New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co.