1998 Oregon Ballot Measure 58

Last updated

Ballot Measure 58 was a citizen's initiative that was passed by the voters of the U.S. state of Oregon in the November 1998 General Election. The measure restored the right of adopted adults who were born in Oregon to access their original birth certificates. The measure passed with 609,268 votes in favor, 454,122 against. It was immediately challenged by several birth mothers who had put children up for adoption, which delayed instituting the measure for a year and a half.

Contents

Text

Upon receipt of a written application to the state registrar, any adopted person 21 years of age and older born in the state of Oregon shall be issued a certified copy of his/her unaltered, original and unamended certificate of birth in the custody of the state registrar, with procedures, filing fees, and waiting periods identical to those imposed upon non-adopted citizens of the State of Oregon pursuant to ORS 432.120 and 432.146. Contains no exceptions. [1]

On December 1, 1998, a group of birth mothers, represented by attorney Franklin Hunsaker, filed a lawsuit to seek an injunction. Marion County Oregon circuit court judge Albin W. Norblad granted an injunction halting the implementation of Measure 58. Judge Norblad later recused himself from the case and was replaced by Judge Paul Lipscomb.

In his decision, Judge Lipscomb upheld Measure 58, ruling the Oregon Constitution held no promise of secrecy to women who gave their children up for adoption. "Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either any contractual right to absolute privacy or confidentiality, or any impermissible impairment of any such rights."

The Oregon Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction on July 30, 1999. A deadline of August 4 was set for oral arguments in the case. On August 13, the court issued another 90-day stay while it reviewed a constitutional challenge. Yet another stay was granted on September 7, 1999, extending through January 31, 2000.

Oral arguments were heard on November 22, 1999, before the Oregon Court of Appeals, which on December 29 upheld the lower court's decision regarding access to adoptees birth records. [2]

The court of appeals again issued a seven-day stay on December 30, 1999, to allow the plaintiffs to file an emergency appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. On January 6, 2000, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the emergency stay would continue indefinitely. The court declined to hear the case without comment on March 20, 2000, and continued a 21-day stay to give the birth mothers a chance to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. The stays were granted four more times, postponing implementation until May 30, 2000.

In the final two legal battles over Measure 58, the birth mothers were denied a motion to reconsider by the Oregon Supreme Court on May 16, 2000. Also on May 23, 2000, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to extend the stay against the new law. The legal battle ended on May 30, 2000, when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied a request for a stay.

Time Line

1998

May 22, Supporters of the initiative petition to allow adoptees unseal their birth records turned in 86,422 signatures turned into the Oregon Secretary of State.

July 9, Ballot Measure 58 qualifies with 73,261 signatures.

August 26, Willamette Week publishes a story advocating passage of Measure 58 as a fight for civil rights. [3]

September 2, Then Governor of Oregon John Kitzhaber states he opposes the measure. [4]

September 16, Willamette Week publishes story, "Bastard: Adoption in America" which chronicles one persons struggle to find answers about their adoption. [5]

September 23, The Oregonian publishes a column stating that oppose the measure due to privacy concerns.

October 12, Oregon's Secretary of State publishes the Voter's Pamphlet listing arguments both for and against Measure 58. [1]

October 14, Willamette Week publishes an editorial in support of Measure 58. [6]

November 1, An ad appears in The Oregonian that lists the names of 500 birth mothers who support the measure.

November 3, Ballot Measure 58 is passed by the voters 57% to 43%. [7]

December 1, Marion County Circuit Judge Albin W. Norblad grants an injunction halting implementation of Measure 58 as a result of a lawsuit filed by Franklin Hunsaker, on behalf of four anonymous birth mothers.

December 9, Three private parties, including Helen Hill, Chief Petitioner for Measure 58, Curtis Endicott, a St. Helens adoptee, and Susan Updike of Scappoose, a birth mother—and one organization, the Oregon Adoptive Rights Association, seek intervenor status in the Measure 58 lawsuit. Intervenor status would allow them to cross-examine witnesses, examine evidence, and participate in some court activities. These parties are represented in court by Portland attorney Thomas E. McDermott.

December 18, Three more anonymous birth mothers are added as plaintiffs in an amended complaint.

1999

January 19, Judge Norblad hears arguments over granting intervenor status, and hears discussion of procedural issues for protecting plaintiff birth mothers' anonymity. Hearing scheduled for January 28 on the procedural issues.

January 22, Intervenor is status granted to Helen Hill, Curtis Endicott, Susan Updike, and the Oregon Adoptive Rights Association.

April 1, Birth Mother drops out of lawsuit. Jane Doe 3 withdraws as a plaintiff from the case, for reasons not given.

June 17, Judge Norblad recuses himself from the case, which will be taken over by presiding Judge Paul Lipscomb.

July 12, Then Governor Kitzhaber signed into law today HB 3194, an amendment to Measure 58 to provide for a voluntary "Contact Preference Form" to be attached to the original birth certificate. The bill leaves untouched the rights of adoptees and respects the spirit of Measure 58 while alleviating concerns about its "fairness". It is unanimously supported by supporters as well as opponents of Measure 58.

July 15, After the hearing on Wednesday July 14, Judge Lipscomb promises a decision possibly as soon as Friday July 16

July 16, Judge Lipscomb today upheld Measure 58, saying the Oregon Constitution held no promise of secrecy to women who gave their children up for adoption.

"Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either any contractual right to absolute privacy or confidentiality, or any impermissible impairment of any such rights."

July 17, The six anonymous birth mothers and their attorney promise to file an appeal of Judge Lipscomb's decision.

July 20, Adoptees begin filing requests with the state office of vital records in anticipation of the lifting of the injunction against Measure 58.

July 21, A Willamette Week article, Open Sesame, profiles Helen Hill's long involvement in the M58 campaign, and her jubilation at Judge Lipscomb's decision.

July 22, The six anonymous birth mothers file a motion with the Oregon Supreme Court to continue the injunction against Measure 58.

July 23, The State of Oregon's Archive Division gears up for an onrush of requests from adoptees requesting their original birth certificates.

July 27, In a telephone conference today with lawyers, Judge Lipscomb refused to suspend his decision upholding Measure 58. However, attorneys for opponents of the law have said they will ask the Oregon Court of Appeals for a stay to continue to prevent it from taking effect while they appeal the case to that court. They will have about two days to file that motion before the State of Oregon files an order and the circuit court decision takes effect.

July 30, The Oregon Court of Appeals on Friday issued a temporary stay to prevent Measure 58 from taking effect, while it considers whether to continue blocking the law during an appeal. The appeals court gave the state until August 12 to respond.

August 4, The Oregon Appeals Court has set a deadline of August 12 for arguments to be submitted on the issue of extending the stay on Measure 58 pending a new appeal. Until then, Measure 58 is still on hold.

August 13, State appeals court puts adoption law on hold another 90 days. The Oregon Appeals Court today issued a new 90-day stay on Measure 58 while it reviews the constitutional challenges.

September 7, The Oregon Court of Appeals extended their stay of Measure 58 through January 31, 2000. Chief Judge Mary Deits said the court will hear oral arguments on November 22.

September 11, Adoptee Rights Spokesman Dies Waiting for Measure to Take Effect. Curtis Endicott died of a lifelong, undiagnosed lung ailment at age 51, while waiting for Oregon's successful Adoptee Rights Initiative (Measure 58) to take effect

November 22, The Oregon State Court of Appeals hold oral arguments in Measure 58 case.

December 29, Appeals court upholds adoption records access. [8]

December 30, The Court of Appeals has issued a seven-day further stay, to allow the plaintiffs to file an emergency appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court to review the case and to impose a longer stay while the appeals process is pursued.

On the same day, the Bureau of Vital Statistics has been ordered to immediately stop processing Oregon adoptees' requests for birth certificates.

2000

January 5, Franklin Hunsaker, attorney for the six plaintiffs, files an emergency appeal of the Appeals Court ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregonian reports Birth mothers seek hold on law

January 6, Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the seven day stay granted by the Court of Appeals on December 30 will continue indefinitely.

March 20, Oregon Supreme Court lets Measure 58 stand. The Oregon Supreme Court today declined without comment to hear the appeal challenging Measure 58. The Court continued a stay suspending the law for 21 more days, allowing the plaintiffs to ask the Court to reconsider, or to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

April 5, As the 21-day stay granted by the Oregon Supreme Court approaches expiration, plaintiffs' attorney Hunsaker asked the court for another 21-day stay to allow more time to file an appeal.

April 10, The Oregon State Supreme Court has granted another 21-day stay till May 2 to allow plaintiffs' attorney Franklin Hunsaker more time to file a motion for reconsideration.

May 2, The Oregon State Supreme Court has granted yet another stay while it considers a motion filed today by attorney Franklin Hunsaker asking that the Supreme Court itself should rule, not just let the lower court decision stand.

May 16, The Oregon Supreme Court today denied without comment a motion to reconsider its decision to let stand an appellate court ruling that upheld the legality of Measure 58. Yet another stay has been granted however until May 30 to allow the challengers of the measure to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

May 19, Franklin Hunsaker filed a motion with the Oregon Court of Appeals to stay enforcement of Measure 58 until the U.S. Supreme Court can rule on the plaintiff's petition for certiorari. The Appeals Court asked for opposing arguments to the motion from The Attorney General's office and intervenors' attorneys McDermott and Pulvers.

May 23, The Oregon Court of Appeals denied a motion by Hunsaker to extend a stay against Measure 58. Plaintiffs next step is to seek a stay from a justice of The U.S. Supreme Court to allow time to file an appeal there. All challenges to Measure 58 at the state level are exhausted.

May 25, An AP news story, "Oregon Adoptees To Get Records", notes that unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear a constitutional challenge to Measure 58, the measure will go into effect on Tuesday May 30 at 5:01 p.m.

May 30, Supreme Court Justice O'Connor denies request to stay Measure 58. Plaintiff's attorney Franklin Hunsaker has appealed at the last minute to Justice Thomas, who has not responded yet. Although Court rules allow this, such moves are not favored, and would usually need a majority vote of the full court to be accepted. Measure 58 goes into effect at 5:01 p.m.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Albin W. Norblad</span> American attorney and judge

Albin Walter Norblad III was an attorney in the U.S. state of Oregon, and a judge of the Oregon Circuit Court for the 3rd judicial district, in Marion County at Salem. He was named for his father, A. Walter Norblad, and grandfather, A. W. Norblad, both prominent Oregon attorneys and politicians.

Same-sex marriage in Florida has been legal since January 6, 2015, as a result of a ruling in Brenner v. Scott from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on August 21, 2014. The order was stayed temporarily. State attempts at extending the stay failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court denying further extension on December 19, 2014. In addition, a state court ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Miami-Dade County on the afternoon of January 5, 2015. In another state case challenging the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, a Monroe County court in Huntsman v. Heavilin stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal and the stay expired on January 6, 2015.

Same-sex marriage in Colorado has been legally recognized since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made similar rulings with respect to such bans in Utah on June 25 and Oklahoma on July 18, which are binding precedents on courts in Colorado. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Tenth Circuit cases, and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay. On October 7, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

Same-sex marriage in Alabama has been legal since June 26, 2015, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Not all counties immediately complied with the ruling, copying behavior from the civil rights era when they had refused to perform interracial marriages. A year after the Supreme Court ruling, only twelve counties would either issue licenses to no one or only to opposite-sex couples. By 2017, this number had dropped to only eight counties, with all eight refusing to issue licenses to anyone. In May 2019, the Alabama Legislature passed a bill replacing the option that counties issue marriage licenses and perform marriage ceremonies with the requirement of counties to record marriage certificates. Subsequently, all counties complied and announced on August 29, 2019 that they would record marriage certificates for interracial and same-sex couples. Previously, Alabama had banned the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of such marriages from other jurisdictions by executive order in 1996, by statute in 1998, and by constitutional amendment in June 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

<i>Hedges v. Obama</i> American legal case

Hedges v. Obama was a lawsuit filed in January 2012 against the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The legislation permitted the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". The plaintiffs contended that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations.

Same-sex marriage in South Dakota has been legal since June 26, 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. Attorney General Marty Jackley issued a statement critical of the ruling but said South Dakota is obligated to comply and the state would recognize same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage in Nebraska has been legally recognized since June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Following the court ruling, the Attorney General, Doug Peterson, announced that the state of Nebraska would comply and recognize same-sex marriages.

Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.

<i>Geiger v. Kitzhaber</i> 2014 court case in Oregon, US, about same-sex marriage

Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Among the several defendants, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed appearances in the case to defend Oregon's position, but declined to defend the constitutionality of the bans and ordered state agencies to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages established elsewhere.

Same-sex marriage in Mississippi has been legal since June 26, 2015. On November 25, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled that Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Enforcement of his ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. On June 29, Attorney General Jim Hood ordered clerks to comply with the court ruling and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Fifth Circuit lifted its stay on July 1, and Judge Reeves ordered an end to Mississippi's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban. However, until July 2, 2015, several counties in Mississippi continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses, including DeSoto, Jasper, Jones, Newton, Pontotoc, Simpson and Yalobusha.

Same-sex marriage in Missouri has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state bans on marriages between two people of the same sex on June 26, 2015. Prior to the court ruling, the state recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions pursuant to a state court ruling in October 2014, and certain jurisdictions of the state performed same-sex marriage despite a statewide ban.

<i>Wright v. Arkansas</i>

Wright v. Arkansas is a same-sex marriage case pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court. An Arkansas Circuit Court judge ruled the Arkansas Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on May 9, 2014. He clarified his opinion to include state statutes that interfered with allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage as well. The state Supreme Court issued a stay in the case on May 16, 2014, but approximately 450 same-sex marriage licenses were issued before the stay went into effect.

<i>De Leon v. Perry</i>

De Leon v. Perry was a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The state defendants filed an interlocutory appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the disposition on the motion was not a final ruling in the case. On April 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited hearing, which was denied on May 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited hearing on October 6, 2014, after the Supreme Court of the United States denied appeals in other marriage equality cases, and the motion was granted on October 7, 2014, setting a hearing for November 2014. However, on October 27, 2014, the Fifth Circuit set oral arguments for January 9, 2015.

<i>Burns v. Hickenlooper</i>

Burns v. Hickenlooper is a lawsuit filed on July 1, 2014, in federal district court in Colorado, challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the fundamental right of marriage. The defendants agreed with the substance of the plaintiffs' case, but asked the district court to stay implementation of any order requiring Colorado to alter enforcement of its ban pending the outcome of other litigation. After the district court declined to grant more than a one-month stay on July 23, the state's governor and attorney general appealed and won a stay from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21. Following U.S. Supreme Court action in other cases, on October 8 they asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss their appeal and lift the stay, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in Colorado.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the lawfulness and constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Our Children's Trust is an American nonprofit public interest law firm based in Oregon that has filed several lawsuits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments, arguing that they are infringing on the youths' rights to a safe climate system.

References

  1. 1 2 "Measure No. 58". Official 1998 General Election Online Voters' Guide. Oregon Secretary of State. October 12, 1998. Retrieved December 3, 2008.
  2. ↑ "Oregon Judicial Department - Publications". Archived from the original on December 23, 2005. Retrieved January 8, 2006.
  3. ↑ Wentz, Patty (August 26, 1998). "Birth of a Notion". Willamette Week. Archived from the original on November 29, 2005. Retrieved January 7, 2006.
  4. ↑ "Willamette Week- News Buzz". Archived from the original on February 28, 2005. Retrieved January 7, 2006.
  5. ↑ "Willamette Week News Lead Story". Archived from the original on November 24, 2005. Retrieved January 7, 2006.
  6. ↑ "Willamette Week| 98 Ballot Measures| Civil Rights". Archived from the original on November 29, 2005. Retrieved January 7, 2006.
  7. ↑ Itemized Measure Listings, 1998 General Election: State Measure 58 page 15
  8. ↑ OREGON v. HELEN HILL, CURTIS ENDICOTT, SUSAN UPDYKE; and THE OREGON ADOPTIVE RIGHTS ASSOCIATION Archived December 23, 2005, at the Wayback Machine , Oregon Supreme Court, filed December 29, 1999.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.