Article XV
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Scope of authority of legislature and Lottery Commission to amend or execute provisions of this section, (1985) Vol. 44, p 431; items which Oregon State Lottery Commission must treat as “expenses,” (1988) Vol 46, p 61
Art. XV, Section 1
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where Senate fails to confirm reappointment of incumbent, incumbent has right to continue in office as holdover pending appointment and confirmation of successor. State ex rel Adams v. Powell, 171 Or App 81, 15 P3d 54 (2000)
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 50 OLR 301 (1971); 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 2
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 3
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Oath or affirmation of elected official to uphold Oregon and United States Constitutions does not impliedly grant official authority to take otherwise ultra vires action to remedy perceived constitutional shortcomings in laws administered by official. Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 110 P3d 91 (2005)
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 4
NOTES OF DECISIONS
“Casinos” refers to establishments whose dominant use or dominant purpose is for gambling. Ecumenical Ministries v. Oregon State Lottery Comm., 318 Or 551, 871 P2d 106 (1994)
“Costs of administration” and “administering and operating” relate to expenses or costs of internal implementation and management of lottery. Ecumenical Ministries v. Oregon State Lottery Comm., 318 Or 551, 871 P2d 106 (1994)
[Former] ORS 461.546, providing for distribution of lottery money for gaming law enforcement and mental health treatment, violates requirement that lottery money be used for economic development or administrative expenses. Ecumenical Ministries v. Oregon State Lottery Comm., 318 Or 551, 871 P2d 106 (1994)
Casino restriction does not apply to land of federally recognized Indian tribe within boundaries of this state because this section applies only to lands under state jurisdiction. State ex rel Dewberry v. Kitzhaber, 259 Or App 389, 313 P3d 1135 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Authority of charitable organizations to conduct lottery and other games for profit, (1974) Vol 37, p 321; bingo or raffle operated by nonprofit organization as a lottery, (1975) Vol 37, p 718; State Lottery arrangement with other states for multistate lottery, (1986) Vol 45, p 50; lottery funds for education, (1993) Vol 46, p 500; local government obligation to reimburse lottery moneys unconstitutionally disbursed by state, (1994) Vol 47, p 224; concentrated numbers of video poker terminals as constituting casinos, (1995) Vol 48, p 15; legislative authority to alter lottery game retailer share, (1995) Vol 48, p 15; scope of prohibition on appropriations, loans and transfers to State Lottery, (2007) No. 8283
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 79 OLR 793 (2000); 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 5
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 5a
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Statement of state “policy” is intended to signal presently enforceable tenet of law. Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 110 P3d 91 (2005)
Ballot measure enacting this section was amendment, not revision, of Oregon Constitution. Martinez v. Kulongoski, 220 Or App 142, 185 P3d 498 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
Policy that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid does not permit state to exclude same-sex couples from legal benefits granted to married couples. Shineovich and Kemp, 229 Or App 670, 214 P3d 29 (2009), Sup Ct review denied
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 84 OLR 861 (2005)
Art. XV, Section 6
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 7
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 40 WLR 225 (2004)
Art. XV, Section 8
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Same person as: Judicial officer and member of teaching staff of community college or state supported school of higher education, (1975) Vol 37, p 444
Art. XV, Section 10
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Adoption of this section did not violate separate vote requirement of section 1, Article XVII of Oregon Constitution. Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496, 145 P3d 151 (2006)
County’s civil forfeiture proceeding against claimant’s home, based on claimant’s prior criminal convictions, was criminal in nature and thus violated prohibition against double jeopardy under Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution because voters approved this section to require criminal conviction as prerequisite of forfeiture and that forfeited property be connected and proportional to crime of conviction. Yamhill County v. Real Property, 324 Or App 412, 526 P3d 765 (2023), Sup Ct review allowed
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Department of State Police use of property and proceeds from federal agency forfeiture actions, (2002) No. 8278
Art. XV, Section 11
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Department of Human Services determination of employment conditions for home care workers is not performed on behalf of, or as representative of, Home Care Commission. Service Employees International Union Local 503 v. Department of Administrative Services, 202 Or App 469, 123 P3d 300 (2005), Sup Ct review denied