[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
We'll hear argument in our third and last case of the morning, case 23-4292, Linthicum versus Wagner.

[00:00:09] Speaker 00:
You may proceed.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, Beth Jones for plaintiffs' appellants, Senator Linthicum and Senator Boquist.

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
I would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
We're here today because defendants disqualified plaintiffs from running for reelection in 2024 as protest in protest as punishment for walking out in protest of contentious bills in 2023.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
The lower court misapplied Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Kerrigan to erroneously conclude that elected officials cannot invoke First Amendment protections for political walkouts because being absent is an exercise of legislative power.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
Appellants seek a preliminary injunction because the deadline to qualify for the 2024 election in Oregon is March 12th.

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
Considering this deadline is less than a month away now, we ask the court to grant appellants injunction while this appeal is pending if there is not sufficient time for an opinion to issue.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
Appellants are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim because they engaged in a constitutionally protected activity and were punished for this activity in a manner that prevents them from reelection.

[00:01:42] Speaker 04:
Gaz, I have a question for you.

[00:01:44] Speaker 04:
What was bothering me on this case?

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
When legislators stage a walkout, why is that, in your view, protected expression rather than conduct that can be regulated?

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
And I'm sorry, I missed the last part, rather than conduct that can be what?

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Regulated.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
The walkout.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
by each individual senator was intended to convey a message.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
That message was understood as shown in the media reports and the disruption it caused to the legislature.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
That is expressive conduct.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
But the question, in a general sense, yes.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
In a legal sense, the question is, is it expressive conduct that the First Amendment protects?

[00:02:44] Speaker 00:
And there, I think you have to contend with Kerrigan.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
Well, I would argue that if it was part of the legislative process to be absent or to walk out, why would they be punished for engaging in the legislative process?

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
Doesn't Oregon get to control that?

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
Hasn't Oregon controlled that by amending its constitution?

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
It's pretty fundamental.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
It said this is the way the legislature is going to be constituted.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
And if you have 10 unexcused absences, then you're disqualified from being re-elected.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
The amendment to the Article IV, Section 15 that you're referencing does not mention that you will be punished whether your conduct is expressive or non-expressive.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
You just know that if you're not there and you have an unexcused absence, then you're not eligible for re-election.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
Those are the rules of the game.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
Your clients knew that before they walked out.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
What's the problem?

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
That they were absent with excuse, and that excuse was they were exercising their constitutional right to protest.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
So let me give you a hypothetical.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Let's suppose that we have a civil engineer employed by the state in the Department of Public Works, works on big construction projects, and he quite disagrees with the department's decision to let a contractor, a particular contractor, on I-5.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
Can the civil engineer not show up for work for days at a time in protest over the granting of the contract?

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
Does the state have the right to fire him when he doesn't show up for work?

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
Well, in this case, I believe that the state would have the right to fire an employee who stopped coming to work.

[00:04:28] Speaker 03:
However, this case involves elected officials who did not stop working.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
But you've alleged from the beginning that this is a personal right, not a legislative right.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
It's not a free speech right that attaches to a legislator.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
It's a free speech that attaches to your clients who happen to be legislators.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
Did I misunderstand that?

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
Yes, they as legislators or as citizens, both, they have a right to political protest.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
So why is their right to not to show up for work any different than the civil engineer who doesn't show up for work?

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
Civil engineer could be fired now.

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
I want to know in one way I think it could be viewed that they did not show up to work, but they were actually working on behalf of their constituents But they weren't where the Constitution told them they were supposed to be The Constitution also provides that you may be absent with excuse and it does not prohibit expressive conduct

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
But if you decide for whatever reason and have an unexcused absence, so whether they're on vacation in Barbados or whether they're talking with their constituents someplace else offside about how unfair all the rules are or the legislation is, they're absent without excuse.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
And the Constitution addresses that.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
I think if you are going to compare being absent for expressive conduct versus being absent for say being on vacation or you're sick that you're not going to have the same protections.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
So the civil engineer who is protesting the awarding of the contract and doesn't show up for work is now this is expressive conduct and it is it is protected and so he can't be fired.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
Well, I do not know if he could be fired for that as an employee, but elected officials are not state employees.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
OK, but why is it different?

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
Why is it different for an elected official?

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
Again, that's why I asked the question whether the First Amendment right that you're asking for is personal to these people as citizens or whether it belongs to them as legislators.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
Those might be two different things.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
It's different than a government employee because we are talking politics.

[00:06:46] Speaker 03:
We are talking a representative democracy.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
It's a different standard that we apply?

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
Well, elected officials are given the widest latitude to express their political views.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Even if their constitution tells them that they have to be in place on a certain number of days?

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
The Constitution does say that if they are absent without permission or excuse, that they were absent with excuse.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
But that's a factual matter.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And I don't think we've got the power to review that finding a fact.

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
I think we have to accept that the president of the Senate found that it was without excuse.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
I think you've conceded that.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
He found that they were unexcused.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
Have you alleged or brought forward evidence that the Senate president acted in a discriminatory way in terms of how he characterized excuses or non excuses?

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
There was not a single unexcused absence prior to the walkout.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
And even after absences had been excused, once the elected officials walked out, they were retroactively unexcused.

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
Changed to unexcused.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
What does that prove?

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
That this was purely retaliation for their conduct in walking out.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
Isn't it the case, just as we sit here today, that many of these were regarded as unexcused absences?

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
It seems like you want us to read into something an intent, but that's now been seemingly adjusted or corrected.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, I don't understand.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
I think what you were saying is there were people who were absent who were not marked as unexcused, but those have now been changed to unexcused.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
There were absence requests that had been granted, but then when the senators walked out, they were retroactively unexcused.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
But you're not really contending that your client wasn't protesting and walking out and he had at least 10 days, right?

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
I mean, one of them had, what, 34 days absent.

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
It was 28 days.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
That's a lot of days over the 10 limit.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
We do not dispute that they were absent in protest over the 10 days.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
Our argument is that they have a first amendment right to political protest, just like a citizen does.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
And they were not absent from work.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
They were working on behalf of their constituents, proven by the fact that they've walked out in the past and are reelected because they represent an unpopular minority political view in this state.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
How do you contend with the language in Kerrigan?

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
A legislator has no right to use official powers for expressive purposes.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
Isn't it an exercise of official power to not show up to the quorum?

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
I believe that official powers are part of the legislative process in executing the legislative process and that choosing not to participate in the legislative process cannot be part of the legislative process.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
When there is no quorum, there is no legislative process.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
How about this one?

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
This is the Supreme Court.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
This court has rejected the notion that the First Amendment confers a right to use governmental mechanics to convey a message.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
Why wasn't this the use of governmental mechanics?

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
Again, that was referencing, I believe in that case, was a ballot could not be used as a mechanism.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
So the distinction is between action and inaction?

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
Mechanics, there are no governmental mechanics being used.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
They simply made the choice to walk out in protest.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
Well mechanics are the quorum requirement, right?

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
That's what allows the legislature to function.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
When they walked out, they did not know if they'd be denying a quorum or not.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
They walked out in protest.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
And whether there was a quorum or not, they couldn't know.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
That depended on what other people did.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
So they planned on denying a quorum.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
That is true.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't mean they knew they were denying a quorum.

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
They walked out regardless.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
In fact, Senators Linthicum and Senator Boquist

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
remained in protest June 15th through June 25th till the last day of the session, even after a quorum was reinstated.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
So this was their individual protest working on behalf of their constituents.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
I would also argue under Kerrigan, recently in the case of Boquist v. Courtney, this court recognized a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim based on statements partly made on the Senate floor.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
So statements made on the Senate floor are clearly part of executing the legislative process.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
And there was a valid First Amendment claim alleged there.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
Council Judge Gould, if I could ask you a question following up your argument.

[00:11:49] Speaker 04:
If I assume that the conduct here amounts to expressive conduct, what's the standard of view that's applicable to it?

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
We are on a preliminary injunction, so abusive discretion.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
And we are arguing that the lower court abused its discretion by applying Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Kerrigan to this case, because being absent is not an exercise of your official power.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
We think that's where the decision went wrong.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
So the lower court, in its order,

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
on ER 13 did not deny that this was a protest.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
The court said these walkouts were not simply protests, they were also an exercise of their official power.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
And whether the legislator is present in the chamber to debate and vote on a bill or absent themselves are alike in that they're an exercise of the power of the legislator's office.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
We disagree with that finding of the court based on Kerrigan, because absenting yourself from the process is not part of the process.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
What do you do with the history that allows legislators to be compelled to come back, including by force and even with imprisonment?

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
Under we do not dispute that under Oregon Constitution Article 4 section 12.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
That's the quorum provision It's not an issue here that nobody acted under the quorum provision here.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
There is a right for the major or Assuming the majority party less than a quorum to compel the return of absent members however

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
That did not happen here.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
There was no compulsion of absent members.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
And there is no right to compel the return of absent members once a quorum is reinstated.

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
That simply has to do with the quorum.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
And that's not the section of the Constitution we're under here.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
We are under Section 15, the punishment section.

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
And if you'd like to

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
see those sections in their entirety.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Section 12 is in the opening brief, page 6, footnote 1.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
And the punishment section 15 is on page 4.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
And in neither of these sections, is there a prohibition on walking out?

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
Even the quorum section does not provide a prohibition on denying a quorum or walking out.

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
And defendants have consequences for the next election.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
You're disqualified from being re-elected.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
That's not in the quorum provision, your honor.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
Well, it's in the provision that was added to the constitution.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
That's article four.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
To the punishment provision.

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
Whatever the provision is, your clients knew what the consequences of, I mean, the best of civil disobedience is that if you're going to be civilly disobedient, you know that you're going to suffer some consequences, but you're willing to do it.

[00:14:51] Speaker 02:
Your clients here want to have all of the power and none of the downside.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
Well, the downside, there is still the downside, because if there is a quorum denied, there is a history and precedent of compelling the return of absent members.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
I still understand why Oregon, as a matter of constituting its own legislature, can't provide a rule that says, when legislators get elected, we expect them to attend.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
And if they don't, then they don't get reelected.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
But fundamental rights cannot be committed to a vote of the.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
What fundamental right?

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
We're trying to constitute a legislature here.

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
The First Amendment right to protest is fundamental.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
So Article 4, Section 15 was void ab initio because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
Absolutely not.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
This is not a facial challenge.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
We believe it could be applied constitutionally to non-expressive or to conduct that is not protected by the Constitution.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
Also, what if a legislature legislator says, I am not going to attend any sessions because I'm busy writing a book, which is very First Amendment, core protected.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
Is that also invalid as applied to that legislature legislator?

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
He has the right to go and write a book instead of attend the sessions.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
If he has a First Amendment right, yes, he should be able to exercise that right without punishment for exercising it.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
Somebody here wanted to go to a garden party.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
I saw that in the record.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
So if that legislator can say, I wanted to go to the garden party to speak and exercise my First Amendment rights, that person also can't be marked as unexcused.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
If they're absenting themselves to exercise a protected right, I do not believe they should be unexcused.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
A right of association.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
They went to the garden party to associate us, just as the Constitution provides.

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
And I would argue they should not be punished for that, and that the voters should decide if they want to re-elect.

[00:16:50] Speaker 02:
They elected to the Oregon legislature and announced that they won't show up for any meetings because they're just too busy this term.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
Then I think it should be up to their constituents to decide whether they are reelected or not.

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
It should not be up to the majority to decide if the minority is reelected or representing their constituents by walking out.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
Of course, the majority will always say the minority cannot act.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
well i think you want to save a few minutes for rebuttal yes your honor okay why don't we do that and we'll hear from uh... the state thank you

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
good morning your honors may please the court dustin buehler appearing in this matter on behalf of the president of the oregon senate and oregon's secretary of state uh... this court has already noted the problems of plaintiffs position here which is that if legislators have a personal

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
First Amendment right to use the official powers and the governmental mechanics that they hold only by virtue of the office they hold.

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
There is no limiting principle to that.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
There is no way you can constitute your legislature in a functional way.

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
And the parade of horribles are endless, and they're not just endless here in Oregon.

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
I would also note they're endless in the other four states, four or five states that have similar supermajority requirements.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
So that's the same if Democratic legislators in the state of Texas abscond to Washington DC for six weeks.

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
It's the same if 15 years ago you have senators, I'm sorry, representatives, Democratic representatives in the minority in Indiana and Wisconsin that protest a right to work bill by fleeing the state.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
That cannot be, as a matter of law,

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
how the First Amendment applies in the legislative context to members, duly elected members of the legislature.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
And it just does not comport with common sense for the reasons that this Court has already noted here today.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
What's the distinction between this case and Boquist versus Courtney?

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, Boquist v. Courtney involved a speech on the floor of the Senate and statements to the media, a statement to the media.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
In that sense, it was similar to Bond v. Floyd, which involved a radio interview by Representative-elect Bond to a media outlet about the Vietnam War.

[00:19:23] Speaker 01:
It's also similar to this court's prior decision in Bethel, Blair v. Bethel School District, in that that, too, is a media statement.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
That is more expressive.

[00:19:33] Speaker 01:
So that is different.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
And this court in Boquist recognized as much, making the initial determination on a motion to dismiss posture, that Senator Boquist had stated a claim, at least at that stage, for conduct that may be protected speech.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
This is different, as the court has already noted.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
This is non-symbolic conduct.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
It's the mechanics of government.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
Being present or absent is essential to the functioning of the legislature.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
And as a result, under Kerrigan, unlike Boquist, unlike Bonvy Floyd, these duly elected members of the Legislative Assembly cannot claim a personal First Amendment right to the mechanics of their position in the legislature itself.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
I take it you're going to agree that

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
the legislature, the Senate president, could not apply this rule in a way that discriminates based on viewpoint or political party?

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
Is there any evidence of that or allegations of that kind of thing here?

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
And with the court's patience, I'll quickly take you through the record.

[00:20:34] Speaker 01:
I know this court set argument on an expedited basis, so I'm happy to flag those pages on the record.

[00:20:40] Speaker 02:
Wasn't there an equal protection claim raised in the original complaint?

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
I think we're only here on the First Amendment complaint, but I believe there wasn't an equal protection

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
It's the First Amendment retaliation claim only.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
If you look at the motion for preliminary injunction, that's the claim before the court.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the excused absence request forms and the summary of the absences that were excused during the walkout, that's on page 20, 21 of the excerpts of record, you can see that both majority party members

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
and minority party members were granted absences in truly extraordinary circumstances.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
So for example, for life-threatening medical conditions, one Democrat and one Republican received prolonged excused absences for that.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
And indeed, one of the plaintiffs to this appeal received two excused absences during the walkout when a water line burst on his property, threatening the source of water for his livestock and for the humans on that property.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
If you look the other direction, it wasn't just minority party legislators that received unexcused absences or had their absence requests denied.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
Pages 61 and 62 of the supplemental excerpts show that there was a majority party senator who sought an absence for her daughter's high school graduation and for the senior ceremony that was held in conjunction with that graduation.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
So to answer the court's question on this record, there simply is no allegation or evidence that this was applied in some sort of discriminatory way.

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
And Judge Bybee, as you noted, look, that may be relevant to an equal protection claim, but it's not even relevant to the question before this court today.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
On a First Amendment retaliation claim, the threshold question, as this court has noted, is whether the conduct in question is protected speech.

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
Kerrigan answers that question in the negative.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
And at that point, there is nothing further for this court to do but affirm the judgment below.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
And unless this court has any other questions, I don't mean to take more time.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
Judge Gold?

[00:22:55] Speaker 04:
No questions here.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
We would urge you to affirm the judgment below.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:23:12] Speaker 03:
I would like to address the discrimination aspect, even though that is not a piece of the First Amendment retaliation claim.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
Only minority senators, only members of the minority party were disqualified from re-election.

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
There were 10 of them, I believe, who have been disqualified.

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
There is no reason... Are they the only ones who had more than 10 absences?

[00:23:34] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
And I will remind the court that the record shows that everybody was excused before the walkout.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
So the unexcused absences were really just intended to punish minority party members for walking out.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
Instead of lowering quorum requirements to 50% Instead of compelling the return of absent members would not we would not be here if they had exercised their Historical right to compel the return of absent members, but that's not what happened with your clients have come back If they've been compelled So if we sent a marshal out to get your client, would you have come back?

[00:24:17] Speaker ?:
I

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
I cannot answer that for them, your honor.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
And if he said, I'm protesting, so I'm not going back with you, does he have a First Amendment defense to being arrested?

[00:24:29] Speaker 03:
I do not believe that that would be protected by the First Amendment, because historically, compelling the return of absent members, that's been recognized.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
So arresting him is somehow a better solution than disqualifying him from running for reelection?

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor, because it would serve the state's interest in reinstating a quam disqualifying from a future election does nothing to further the state's stated interest here.

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
So I would argue that.

[00:25:00] Speaker 03:
Acting within the traditions of our country, acting within the quorum requirements, acting within the right to compel, was the appropriate action to take here.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
But punishing somebody by disqualifying them from a future election, I cannot find any precedent of this sort of punishment in a legislature.

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
I've seen plenty of censuring and

[00:25:25] Speaker 03:
I've seen expelling and I've seen two-thirds votes required for punishment.

[00:25:30] Speaker 03:
I've never seen punishment in this manner.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
I do not believe this is constitutional.

[00:25:35] Speaker 03:
Lawmakers have a First Amendment right to protest.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
Their constituents actually demand it and expect it.

[00:25:44] Speaker 03:
So if there's nothing further, Your Honors.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
I want to thank you very much for your argument this morning, and I want to thank your opposing counsel for his argument.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
This matter is submitted, and as we resume and conclude the week, on behalf of Judges Gould and Baibie, I want to thank the court staff here at the Pioneer Courthouse and Ms.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
Dodds for her service as courtroom deputy and all our IT professionals who have helped us throughout the week.

[00:26:08] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much, and we're adjourned.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
All rise.