ࡱ> #` dbjbj D.B{'$,,,8$--dgR&X.X.4/33333tQvQvQvQvQvQvQShUvQr@33r@r@vQ33Q|LKLKLKr@33tQLKr@tQLKLK:@P,P3L. $A,r@lP 0QDR`gRvPRWDWPWPh3 7LK:\&=L333vQvQJ^333gRr@r@r@r@,$, THE OREGON LAW COMMISSIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT PROJECT: A REFORM EFFORT STILL ON THE HORIZON Hardy Myers* & Philip Schradle** I. Introduction There has been a longstanding effort in Oregon to create a unitary system of judicial review of government actions. The holy grail of this effort has been to establish a unified system of review of both state and local government actions. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies to many state agency matters. But the need to use extraordinary writs such as mandamus even at the state level remains, and obtaining review of local government actions can involve navigating the morass of writs of review, writs of prohibition, mandamus, declaratory and injunctive relief, quo warranto, or other similarly esoteric avenues. The goal of judicial review reform is to simplify the process for obtaining review of government action. The process of obtaining the goal, however, has been anything but simple. II. The Hoary History of Judicial Review Reform Efforts to reform the legal processes for review of governmental actions predate the creation of the Oregon Law Commission (OLC). Concerted efforts to reform court review of governmental actions go back to at least the mid-1980s, while the OLC was first established in 1997 to conduct a continuing program of law reform. In 1985, Professor Barbara Safriet described Oregons laws as a hodgepodge of common law, equitable, extraordinary, and legislatively created provisions. Professor Safriet decried the quandary facing the potential challenger of government action to make the proper choice of remedy and forum for review because the correct legal characterization of the government action involved determines not only the merits of the challenge, but also the propriety of the challengers choice of remedy and procedure. Then-Chief Justice Edwin Peterson described the myriad processes for seeking judicial review in the following terms: If a person intended to create an inefficient, unpredictable, ineffective, expensive, unresponsive system for review of governmental acts, he or she would use the system we have in Oregon as a perfect model. Ours is senseless and cries for revision. As is discussed below, however, the cry was apparently at a pitch that could only be heard by the cognoscenti. The myriad difficulties associated with the task of finding the proper forum for challenging governmental actions drew the attention of the Oregon Judicial Conference, among others. Bills to simplify the process emerged in nearly every legislative session from 1985-1993, but none of these bills passed. An overview of this series of proposals was written by Assistant Solicitor General Michael D. Reynolds in 1995. Before the 1995 legislative session, momentum for judicial review reform grew. In 1994, the Judicial Conference prepared proposed legislation to standardize the process to challenge government actions and decide those challenges. The resulting proposal for that legislative session was Senate Bill 107 (SB 107). The Oregon Judicial Department crafted a memorandum to address questions about SB 107. The memorandum provides a helpful overview and interesting insight into the debate already underway for more than a decade about the need for judicial review reform legislation. During the debate on judicial review reform, local government representatives consistently voiced opposition, based in part on concerns about the scope of such efforts. Local governments have continually asserted such proposals would expand the class of reviewable actions by local government to include actions that were not reviewable under existing law. SB 107 was no exception. Due to the opposition from local government, SB 107 was amended to apply only to state government actions and it passed the legislature in that form. As noted earlier, Oregons APA has long applied to state government actions providing a comprehensive and uniform system of judicial review. While there certainly are possible improvements that could be made to that system, state agencies immediately expressed major concerns to Governor John A. Kitzhaber asking, in part, why state agencies should serve as the guinea pigs for this reform experiment when the real impetus for judicial review reform was the confusing labyrinth of law applicable to judicial review of local government actions. This outburst of state agency concern caused Governor Kitzhaber to veto SB 107, but his veto message noted support of the objectives of the bill and stated he would appoint a work group to draft a workable judicial review reform bill. While Governor Kitzhabers veto message suggested that the work group should draft a judicial review reform bill that addressed both review of state agency actions and the more problematic review procedures that apply to local government actions, the work groups focus subsequently turned to a state agency only bill. In a letter initiating the work group, the Governors Legal Counsel Henry H. Lazenby stated: I think it more fruitful and consistent with the Governors desires to use SB 107 as the framework to make these concepts work inside state government. I have had discussions with attorneys for local government and made it clear that our final product here will provide the conceptual framework for a broader-based judicial review proposal that the Governor will support in a future legislative session. The passage of SB 107 heightened state agency awareness of judicial review reform efforts. In a memorandum dated July 16, 1996, a number of state agencies expressed technical and policy concerns about SB 107. Between the 1995 and 1997 legislative sessions, the work group made major efforts to change the more generic SB 107 to more closely mirror the terminology and framework of the APA. The goal was to draft a judicial review reform bill for state government action that used already-existing terminology for review of that action. This effort led to Legislative Counsel Draft 909 (LC 909), written for introduction in the 1997 session of the Legislative Assembly. In LC 909, generic terms that existed for some time in the lexicon of judicial review proposals were now defined with terms rooted in the APA. For example, LC 909 Section 1(1) defined enactment to mean a statute, or a rule as defined in ORS 183.310. Similarly, government action was defined to mean an order as defined in ORS 183.310, an enactment, a government units unlawful failure to act or a government units unreasonable delay in taking action. While much effort was expended attempting to improve application of the judicial review proposal to state actions by moving from SB 107 to LC 909, not all state agencies were convinced of the need for, or workability of, LC 909. Roy Pulvers, then-Staff Attorney for the Oregon Supreme Court (and a primary participant in efforts to draft a judicial review reform proposal for nearly the entire period covered by this article), drafted a memorandum dated February 24, 1997, noting the advantages of LC 909. Work on LC 909 continued during the spring of 1997, but did not ultimately culminate in submission of a proposal to the legislature. Enacting a state-only judicial review bill never gained the support necessary to become law. Some proponents of a state-only bill believed the experience generated for the state under such a bill would ultimately persuade local governments that a unitary system of judicial review was a beneficial reform. But the proponents argument could not overcome state agency concerns that they would be subjected to the inevitable costs of interpreting and implementing a new system of judicial review when they were not the central cause for concern that animated the call for reform. Thus, a new attempt to craft a judicial review bill acceptable to Governor Kitzhaber, the Oregon Judicial Conference, state agencies and local governments was undertaken. Leading into the 1999 legislative session, Attorney General Hardy Myers and then-Chief Justice Wallace Carson formed a small work group charged with drafting the ideal bill. From the proponents perspective, the bill: (1) would include all governments, state and local, and all their official government actions; (2) would not change the substance of existing law by dramatically increasing or decreasing the availability of judicial review; and (3) would be logical, coherent, and user-friendly for those not familiar with judicial review of government actions. This effort led to House Bill 3578 (HB 3578), introduced in the 1999 Legislative Assembly at the request of the Department of Justice and the Oregon Judicial Conference. HB 3578 was a return to a comprehensive, unitary system of judicial review of both state and local government actions, but modeled on LC 909, which was the earlier attempt to bring the judicial review proposal more in line with Oregons APA. HB 3578, of course, faced the same opposition from local governments as the previous iterations. The League of Oregon Cities (LOC), for example, opposed HB 3578 as the latest in a line of unsuccessful attempts at revision of the judicial system that date back to 1983. LOC stated: We think everyone recognizes that the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act as found in ORS 183 is complex and can benefit by some revision. This bill attempts to implement a substantial revision to that process, while for the first time bringing local government actions under the same process. We oppose this expansion because in doing so the bill will treat judicial review of the decisions of locally elected officials in the same manner as the decisions of appointed state agency officials. The bill encourages the use of the judicial system to resolve local conflicts, which are often political in nature and best resolved through the political process and at the ballot box. We believe that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of state and local decisions, how they are currently treated by the courts, and we oppose the effort through this bill to create a one size fits all approach to judicial review of such qualitatively different decisions. While HB 3578 received a hearing before the subcommittee, it was still in committee when the legislature adjourned sine die. It was at this point in the history of judicial review reform efforts that the OLC established its Work Group on Judicial Review of Government Action and stepped into the longstanding fray. III. The Oregon Law Commissions Efforts As noted above, the OLC was created to conduct a continuing program of law reform and the ongoing efforts to obtain judicial review reform legislation fit well within the ambit of OLC activities. The goal of judicial review reform efforts has always been law improvement in the most fundamental sense: creating a more cost effective system for all parties to test and ensure that government actions are lawful. At its core, this effort should serve all the participantsgovernment entities, other affected parties, and the courts. The devil, of course, has been in the details of crafting statutory terms to reach that goal while not so dramatically changing the existing law as to cause unintended or unpalatable consequences. Unfortunately, the OLCs involvement has not yet reduced the angst caused by proposed changes to the status quo. A. The Initial OLC Work Group Effort The OLC formed its first Work Group on Judicial Review of Government Action in 1999 to prepare a proposal for the 2001 Legislative Assembly. On February 22, 2001, the OLC adopted that Work Groups report on the proposed Judicial Review Procedures Act. That report noted that it: accompanies HB 2246, a proposed bill intended to clarify the law of judicial review of government action. The proposed bill provides a uniform set of procedures and standards of review for challenges to state and local government action. The proposed bill is the result of a year-long project of the Oregon Law Commission. The Commission appointed a work group including members and former members of the Oregon Legislature and the judiciary, attorneys representing state and local government, and attorneys representing private parties. The members of the Oregon Law Commission Work Group on Judicial Review of Government Action are: Hardy Myers, Chair; Hon. Pamela Abernethy; Richard Benner; Sen. Ginny Burdick; Robert Cannon; James Coleman; Wendie Kellington; Hans Linde; Scott Parker; Steve Schell; Philip Schradle; and Rep. Lane Shetterly. Deputy Legislative Counsel David Heynderickx provided substantial drafting help to the work group in preparing the proposed bill. The work group also received particular help from identified resource persons, including Peter Kasting, David Schuman, Thomas Sponsler, Paul Snider, and Richard Townsend. Finally, the work group also received helpful insight and information from a number of other interested individuals who attended the work sessions on the proposal.  The Report, of course, condensed and summarized a lot of discussion and debate among Work Group members. Using HB 3578 as the jumping-off point, the Work Group expended many hours on technical issues and policy differences. For example, in a letter dated February 14, 2000, Scott Parker and Jim Coleman (two Work Group members representing local government), stated: We have two overriding (one could characterize them as philosophical) concerns with the present proposal: 1) it treats judicial review of the decisions of local government elected officials in the same manner as the decisions of appointed state agency officials; and, 2) the proposal, in its present form, encourages the use of the judicial system to resolve local conflicts which are now resolved through the local political process or the ballot box. 1. Excerpts from OLC Report: Judicial Review Procedures Act The OLCs Report tried to synthesize the central issues discussed by the Work Group and addressed in the legislative proposal. Because this OLC effort is the centerpiece of this review, the Reports description of that discussion is set out here verbatim. It both explains the proposal submitted to the legislature and provides some insight into the discussions that occurred within the Work Group. C. The elements of judicial review. Any system of judicial review consists of a number of elements. It must answer basic questions of who, where, when, what, how, how much, and with what effect. These questions are of procedural importance mainly to litigants and judges. Here they are discussed in order of their importance rather than in procedural sequence. 1. Coverage: What actions are reviewable? Any government action may be brought before a court, as may a failure to act when some action is legally required, though the court may dismiss or deny a claim for a number of different reasons. This is true now, and the Judicial Review Procedures Act does not change that fact. It applies to elected policy makers as well as to state or local government units. The Legislative Assembly, for instance, could not insulate its own statutes from constitutional challenges. The Commission nonetheless heard and considered expressions of concern about the definition of government action (Section 2(4)) and the definition of administrative act (Section 2(1)(c)). But upon closer scrutiny no legal analysis supports those concerns. Definition sections have no legal force of their own, but only define the meaning of words that are used in the operational sections of a law. Section 2(4) defines the term government action simply as a collective term for administrative acts and enactments (statutes, ordinances, rules, and other official written statements (Section 2(2)). Since the subject of the bill is judicial review of government actions, the question is whether the definitions of enactments and administrative acts bring anything into potential review that presently cannot be legally challenged under any circumstances. The answer is that they do not. Some members of the Commissions work group representing local governments have contended that the definitions are too sweeping by suggesting hypothetical cases in which judicial review would appear unwarranted. Most of the hypothetical examplesdiscretionary choices in the conduct of schools, parks, or other local affairsin fact would not survive the preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal process set out in Section 6. But that is because they are discretionary, not because they are not government actions. The appropriate legal boundary for determining whether an act is reviewable under this judicial review bill is the dividing line between private acts and acts taken on behalf of a public entity. For example, members of a part-time board may buy dinner and a gift for a retiring employee, but if they pay with public funds it is a government action. Similarly, the choice of paint for schoolrooms may seem discretionary, but perhaps not if the paint contains lead. The crux of the matter is that if any particular act is governed by a legal rule or standardwhich often is the disputed question on judicial reviewthe act should not be beyond judicial review because it is outside a narrow definition of government action. Of course, courts will dismiss any attempted challenge when there is no plausible basis for it. The Act seeks to accomplish this as expeditiously as is compatible with fairness to the citizen seeking review. But dismissal should not result from falling into one of the numerous procedural traps now scattered throughout the present haphazard collection of separate remedies. Efforts to place one or another kind of government action beyond judicial review by excluding it from a judicial review reform bill are misguided, because they only compel judges to revert to the pre-reform methods of review. The Act itself preserves existing statutory review procedures for those specialized fields in which special procedures have been thought necessary, including matters such as parole and government contracts, and in fields like taxation, employment relations, workers compensation, and land use that include specialized tribunals for the first stage of review. Section 3(5). 2. Types of government actions. Broadly speaking, governmental actions fall into two categories. The categories divide between general and specific actions rather than between actions by state and by local officials. The two categories call for different standards of judicial review, regardless who takes the action. One category includes policies officially adopted to govern more than one instance. These may range from statutes and ordinances through state agency rules to the lowest levels of official rule-making or standard-setting, as long as these standards are adopted to apply generally, i.e., in more than one instance. The Act defines such a government action as an enactment. Section 2(2). The second category is the application of an existing rule, or an exercise of delegated discretion, in a particular instance. It includes official actions directed to one or more named persons, now commonly called orders, as well as actions taken in pursuit of some governmental program that are not issued as orders or addressed to or directed against anyone. These are the mass of official actions that do not lay down a rule. The Act describes them as administrative acts. Section 2(1). The distinction between these two categories largely corresponds to the current distinction between rules and orders under Oregons Administrative Procedures Act. This should permit substantial reliance on existing case precedents for reviewing actions of state agencies. The broader terms enactments and administrative acts are needed, however, because the Judicial Review Procedures Act includes review of local ordinances and resolutions, as well as statutes, and because the act covers managerial or operational acts that do not fit into the APA term order. The significant gain here is that a challenger need not wade through a morass of possible types of legal actions to determine how to challenge the particular type of government action at issue. The challenger rather can initiate a challenge to any type of government action through one, uniform methodi.e. by filing a notice of appeal under this Act. 3. State or local actions. Local officials, by virtue of their elective office, may intuitively feel that their actions have a distinctive character and should be viewed differently than similar acts of state officials. But in legal analysis and court procedures, there is no reason to distinguish between state and local actions in a judicial review bill. Their legal characteristics are the same for purposes of judicial review and require the same analysis, though the analysis may lead to different results. Government actions are either enactments or administrative acts, and reviewable as such. This is why the Act applies to any government unit, as spelled out in Section 2(5). Rather, the important question for policymakers as well as for citizens is how courts analyze and dispose of the issues on review. In fact, a coherent system is more urgent for courts reviewing local actions, because the review of state agencies already is mostly statutory, even if incomplete and inconsistent, while much judicial review of local government action is governed by improvised judicial opinions and outdated writs. The consistent approach provided in the Act actually helps local governments inasmuch as it should cause courts to refrain from substituting their own judgment for the choices of local officials just as it does for state officials. Some members of the Commissions work group representing local governments expressed concern that Section 17(4) might invite legal claims based upon inconsistent actions that the turnover in volunteer elected officials and the absence of long-term staff and records make inevitable. While this concern is understandable, it is addressed by changes made in this subsection after the original draft. Section 17(4) does not open the door to every claim alleging inconsistent action. As now written, the subsection applies only when some law (not this Act) requires that the government unit make consistent decisions in applying a law to its citizens. Furthermore, this subsection requires only that the government unit be able to explain the reason for any difference in treatment. And most important, the subsection expressly does not prevent a government unit from changing any policy whenever newly elected or appointed officials choose to do so by establishing a new policy through an enactment. 4. What courts decide: The scope of judicial review. The scope of review is central to the law of judicial review. It is set out in Section 17 of the Act. A government action may be disputed on different grounds. Some claims concern only an issue of law, for instance the interpretation of a statute or other enactment. Some challenges dispute whether the government followed prescribed procedures. More often there is no disagreement about the law but a dispute about its application to the particular facts in the case. Often, the nature and scope of judicial review hinges on the initial question whether facts matter to the legality of the government action at all. Some cases involve both legal and factual issues. Section 17 sets out an analytic framework for the courts to use in conducting review of government actions. (a) Issues of law. The Act assigns to the courts the familiar judicial task of interpreting legal texts like statutes, regulations, ordinances, and constitutional provisions, including interpretation of the range and limits of discretion that a law delegates to officials. Sections 17(2), (4)(9). Courts are directed, however, to respect the government units special knowledge of technical terms or terms used in its own enactment, unless the agencys interpretation cannot be reconciled with the text. Section 17(7). (b) Issues of fact. When facts are in dispute, a judicial review law must direct the reviewing courts role in that dispute. If a government unit, following proper procedures, has determined the facts on which it acts, courts do not simply determine the facts for themselves, as they might in a private dispute. Courts are not supposed to substitute their own view of the facts for those of responsible public entities. Judicial review of a factual disagreement, however, depends on the manner in which those facts were found, whether the opposing party had an opportunity to dispute the evidence, and how that evidence is available to the reviewing court. If the government action rests entirely on evidence in a factfinding record, the court ordinarily reviews only that record. (Examples are revocation of an occupational license or denial of unemployment benefits.) Because such factfinding procedures are not required to enact most laws, rules, ordinances, or for discretionary actions, the courts role in reviewing any legally essential facts in those situations is different from its role in reviewing the facts on which an administrative action is based. These rules are set out in Section 17(3). D. Remedies. 1. The present confusion. Appeals from government actions or inaction sometime seek that specified action be taken or stopped, that a rule be invalidated, that an order be reversed and a license or benefit be reinstated, or that money be paid or property restored. In the absence of a comprehensive law, such claims may require separate kinds of writs, perhaps in different courts and under different time schedules, wasting time and money in litigating and appealing procedural issues rather than the merits of the claim. They include injunctions, mandatory injunctions, writs of mandamus, writs of review, writs of prohibition, actions for inverse condemnation, petitions for declaratory judgment, and special statutory procedures. Forty years ago, a famous treatise said of the writs: An imaginary system cunningly planned for the evil purpose of thwarting justice and maximizing fruitless litigation would copy the major features of the extraordinary remedies. For the purpose of creating treacherous procedural snares and preventing or delaying the decision of cases on the merits, such a scheme would insist upon a plurality of remedies. . .. The cure, Professor Kenneth Culp Davis wrote, was to establish a single, simple form of petition for judicial review. The Judicial Review Procedures Act moves far toward that goal. The Act consolidates all available forms of relief in Section 20, allowing judges to award the proper relief without the filing of another suit. 2. Who, where, when? Clear and consistent answers to these procedural questions are essential to persons seeking judicial review, to government units, and to the courts. The Act specifies who is eligible to seek review (Section 7), when review may be sought (Sections 8, 9 and 10), and the proper court in which to seek review (Sections 11 and 13). If an appeal needs to be considered in a different court or tribunal from the one in which it is first filed, an important reform allows the case to be transferred (Section 12). In the great majority of cases, judicial review is sought by individuals, businesses, or other entities whose financial or personal interests are adversely affected by the government action at issue. But some government actions (or inaction, where action is legally required) deal with communal rather than individual interests. Examples include environmental interests such as protection of non-human species or protection of public amenities such as parks, monuments, or historic buildings, as well as government actions that may constitute an unlawful establishment of religion. There are also some disputes about the legality of a practice that need review before any identifiable person is injured. Such issues could range from establishing the validity of a bond measure to alleged practices of racial profiling. On the other hand, some prerequisites are needed so that government action is not unduly delayed or subjected to costly litigation on the unwarranted petition of any individual who chooses to file an appeal and to assure that persons purporting to represent a public interest are capable of doing so. The Judicial Review Procedures Acts provision on standing appears in Section 7. . . . . [I]t is essential to keep in mind that the Act only clarifies and systematizes procedures in courts. It does not govern the powers or procedures of governmental bodies. 2. Attorney Generals Testimony in Support of the Bill Based in substantial part on OLCs support, House Bill 2246 (HB 2246) received a hearing before the House Committee on Judiciary in March 2001.  Attorney General Hardy Myers provided the following testimony in support of the bill: Members, good morning. For the record, I am Hardy Myers, Attorney General. More to the point, though, in terms of this bill, I am a member of the Oregon Law Commission, and I am pleased to be joined this morning by Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Oregon, also a member of the Oregon Law Commission; and Philip Schradle, who is one of my Special Counsel. We appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning on behalf of the Oregon Law Commission as you open your consideration of House Bill 2246, the Judicial Review Procedures Act, which is submitted for your consideration, and hopefully your ultimate adoption, by the Oregon Law Commission. I chair the Law Commission Work Group that developed the form of bill that is before you, but as I will explain a bit more in just a moment, my own connection with the subject of this bill extends back in time quite a bit beyond that. As I have said many times, both before and since becoming Attorney General, we are extremely fortunate to live in a society in which government is obliged to follow law, just as individual citizens are. And a very, very important policy decision for our state, as well as for the countrybut in terms of our discussion today, for our stateis what process are we going to provide when individual citizens, or sometimes businesses, or groups of citizens, wish to resist or question an action of government and test whether it complies with law. As we state in the report that we have submitted to you, on page two, the goal of judicial review is to leave policy judgments to governmental policy-makers rather than judges, while ensuring that officials stay within their legal authority, follow prescribed procedures, and have a factual basis for their decisions when that is legally required. And I think that the kind of system I just described with those purposes, the kind of system of judicial review that we ought to strive for, should have certain characteristics. Let me note at least three. One is the system should focus on the judiciarys role. It should clearly tell courts what they should do when reviewing government action. Secondly, a sound system of judicial review should be as simple as we can make it. It should, to the greatest extent possible, provide a single form of review action that eliminates multiple procedures tied to different remedies and permits the parties and the courts to focus quicklyquickly and efficientlyon the merits of the case. And third, a good system of judicial review should clearly allocate decisions between the reviewing court and the governmental unit, and it should clearly define the standards or criteria to be used by courts in determining whether a government action is legal. Each ground for review or alleged error should be separately stated with the appropriate standard for review. So, in short, a good system of judicial review provides a detailed roadmap for courts and parties that help resolve cases more quickly and efficiently. As we have noted in page three of our report, articulating clearly by statute the process for judicial review of government acts, including the courts scope of authority in conducting that review, has at least three major benefits. First, the procedures for obtaining review can be clarified. Second, the predictability and uniformity of judicial decisions can be enhanced. And third, setting up the standards by which courts review governmental decisions, and this is a very important point, limits occasions for judges to extend their authority to change or reverse governmental decisions that they deem unjustified on their merits. Now, compared with the kind of system of judicial review that I have just described, what kind do we presently have in Oregon? Again, I want to refer back to our report very briefly, page three. While the principle of judicial review is clearly established, the rules under which courts exercise judicial review comprise a patchwork of old writs, inconsistent statutes, and case-by-case judicial improvisation. This is confusing to judges, as well as lawyers, and to the parties on either side of judicial review, at needless cost in time and money to all involved. And former Supreme Court Chief Justice Edwin Peterson put it somewhat more directly and bluntly in the Forman v. Clatsop County case, which we also quote on page three, If a person intended to create an inefficient, unpredictable, ineffective, extensive, unresponsive system for the review of governmental acts, he or she would use the system we have in Oregon as a perfect model. Ours is senseless, and it cries out for revision. This measure seeks to reform the current review structure by abolishing the multiple special writs and procedures, and subject to the exemptions that are set forth in the act as to different kinds of procedures, certain kinds of procedures, to create a uniform way to invoke judicial review of government actions. It seeks to do so in pursuit of the characteristics of a sound system of judicial review that I discussed earlier. Now, in presenting this proposal to you on behalf of the Oregon Law Commission, I am not here, as I mentioned earlier, as a stranger to this issue. I first worked on this issue in the interim of 19831984 when I chaired the Joint Interim Committee on the Judiciary that developed the first unified judicial review proposal introduced in the 1985 session. As a former member of the House, who served twice as Chair of this very great committee, I assure you all that I understand very well the burdens you all face in dealing with the large number of bills, many of them on subjects with which you may not be personally familiar. I am sure that that burden is especially heavy at times for the members who are not lawyers. So I think it is important for all of you to know that the principles of this bill have been studied and worked on and refined for a number of years by many individuals. And the people who know why this bill is needed most, who know most why its needed are the men and women who actually have to perform judicial review, the judges. The Judicial Conference, for years, has asked for clarification and simplification of our processes of judicial review of government action. In 1995, the assembly passed a prior version of this measure, but in committee had deleted its coverage of local government. The measure was vetoed by Governor Kitzhaber, citing that deletion. In 1999, a precursor of this bill was introduced in the assembly, but too late, really, to engage the time of the committee as would be wanted, and so it became, in this past interim, a study topic of the Oregon Law Commission, with that bill from the 1997, 1999 session as the point of departure. So we have before you now a product of the Oregon Law Commission, which itself was created by the assembly, specifically for the purpose of improving law in the public interest, rather than to pursue any special effort. During the last interim, over a period of about 17 months, the Work Group which I chaired met to develop this bill with the 1999 introduced measure, as I said, as the point of departure. That Work Group included representatives of both state government and local government. The representatives of local government, and I certainly want to credit them for this, worked very hard on the measure. They produced many questions, a number of suggested amendments, many of which, many of which were adopted and incorporated into this bill. And I want to give you just one example very quickly. In any type of court proceeding, there is always a question of whether one can dispose of a claim on legal grounds without having to get into disputed facts, or whether it would be necessary to know the facts in order to make the proper legal claim. In judicial review proceedings, the question becomes whether the government unit must begin to compile a factual record when a complaint is filed, which costs time and money and may prove unnecessary, or whether a court may dismiss a claim when it appears baseless, and thereby save the local government or the governmental unit time and expense. Now, theres tension between these two goals, and versions of the bill have offered a choice of answers. After listening and studying the alternatives, the Commission designed a fair solution, which is now Section 6 of the bill. And the same worked-out approach applies to several other issues on which you may still hear concerns and objections. Let me be frank with the Committee. Everyone is in favor of well-drafted, simpler, more comprehensive law. On the other hand, you may be likely to hear from lawyers specializing in a particular field who resist any change in that special area unless it favors their client. And often, they ask just to be exempted. But if they are exempted, then they favor law reform for everyone else. The question for the legislature, and its just as true in my time as it is now, is how you deal with this. It does not work in relation to a long-formed issue of this kind to simply ask the proponents of a comprehensive bill and those who may want special changes or exceptions or exemptions to go off and see if they can agree, and if they cant agree, nothing happens. That just leaves the law in the present morass. 3. The Fate of House Bill 2246 Despite the considerable efforts of many adherents, HB 2246 did not pass out of the committee, and the continuing morass remained unchanged. As Bill Taylor, Judiciary Committee Counsel, noted with particular reference to this proposed legislation, all politics are local, and local governments continued opposition left this proposal again in the House Committee on Judiciary at adjournment. Nevertheless, a small step was taken by the Legislative Assembly in plucking the so-called liberal transfer provision out of the judicial review bill, embedding it in House Bill 3119, and enacting it as what is now codified as ORS 14.165 (Transfer of Proceeding Against Public Body) and ORS 34.740 (Amendment of Petition or Action to Seek Proper Remedy). These provisions generally allow transfers of actions or proceedings brought against governmental bodies to the appropriate court, if they are timely filed in the wrong court or filed using the wrong form of petition. B. Subsequent OLC Work Group Efforts Somewhat chagrined but undaunted, the OLC revived the Work Group on Judicial Review of Government Action during the interim leading to the 2003 regular legislative session. Much time and effort were expended to submit a less contentious proposal to the Legislative Assembly. Again, a Work Group report was prepared for the OLC to accompany the new proposal. The Work Groups report noted: In 2001, the Oregon Law Commission adopted an earlier version of this proposal recommending that it be submitted for enactment by the Legislative Assembly. That proposal was submitted to the Legislative Assembly in the form of HB 2246. HB 2246 was not enacted into law, but the Commission authorized continuation of the Judicial Review Procedures Act Work Group to attempt to address concerns that were raised about the proposal. During the last two years, the Work Group convened on numerous occasions and received input from a broad range of practitioners. The participants in the Work Group included persons with experience representing state and local governments, private practitioners with experience representing persons challenging state and local government actions, current and former members of the judiciary, and current and former members of the Legislative Assembly. The basic framework of the proposal has remained the same, but there have been many changes incorporated in particular sections to address specific issues that were raised in the Work Group discussions. The report also acknowledged the Work Groups efforts in the following terms: The members of the Work Group are: Hardy Myers, Chair; Hon. David Brewer; Paul Elsner; Janice Krem; Hans Linde; Scott Parker; Meg Reeves; Steve Schell; Philip Schradle; Rep. Lane Shetterly; and Martha Walters. Senior Deputy Legislative Counsel David Heynderickx provided substantial drafting help to the Work Group in preparing the proposed bill. The Work Group also received particular help from interested participants, including Lorey Freeman, Christy Monson, Paul Snider, and Ruth Spetter. Finally, the tireless efforts of David Kenagy, Wendy Johnson, and Rosalie Schele of the Oregon Law Commission staff have been indispensable in getting the project to this point. The members of the Work Group and the other interested participants have devoted a great deal of time and effort to develop this proposed bill. This project generated vigorous discussions on a number of topics and the resulting proposal has been improved substantially by the diligent efforts on the part of all who have participated. This report was prepared for the Commission by Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Philip Schradle, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, and we in particular wish to thank all those who have participated for their contributions to this project. However, the attempt to create a less contentious proposal failed. Even though the Work Group was expanded to include more administrative law practitioners, the result was even more fractious. In fact, the Work Group members produced not only the Work Group report noted above, but three more alternative reports by local government representatives Ruth Spetter, Paul Elsner, and Scott Parker, and private practitioners Steve Schell and Janice Krem. These alternative reports represent the tensions in the judicial review reform effort. Local governments continued to vigorously resist proposals to make their actions reviewable on the same terms as state government actions, arguing that local government actions are qualitatively different (at least in some areas of governmental activities). Local governments argued strenuously that current processes and standards for judicial review of state government actions under the APA should not be engrafted wholesale into a bill governing judicial review of local government actions. Conversely, some administrative law practitioners argued that not only should existing APA legal standards be included in any such bill, but, in addition, APA processes and standards should be made more protective of the individual affected by state action, and that judicial interpretations of the APA should be explicitly included in a new judicial review bill. While the participants in the OLC Work Group diligently tried to address these issues, the big picture gains to be obtained from the creation of a unified system of judicial review did not outweigh the basic differences in Work Group perspectives, and an agreement could not be reached. All four reports were submitted to the OLC and the OLC ultimately forwarded the Work Groups draft bill (LC 1564) to the Legislative Assembly with all four reports. With such a fractured introduction, the resulting measure, House Bill 3027, foundered again in the House Committee on Judiciary. IV. Conclusion This is the most recent chapter of OLC activity on reform of judicial review of government action; hopefully it is not the last. As one can tell from this brief overview, a lot of time and thoughtful effort have been expended on the quest for a unified system of judicial reviewbut without success to date. This failure was not due to a lack of effort or a dwindling need for reform. It is instead the result of a perhaps understandable, but also unfortunate, fear of change, and the inherent tension involved in attempting to craft a comprehensive system that will affect parties with disparate interests. The fact that the affected parties cannot agree suggests that judicial review reform still requires leadership by a disinterested entity like the OLC. While the participants in the effort generally agree that the goal of a uniform system of judicial review is worthwhile, whether the OLC will regenerate leadership on this issue remains to be seen. For now, reform of judicial review of government action remains an important, but unfinished, part of Oregons good government reform agenda. * Hardy Myers, Oregon Attorney General; LL.B., University of Oregon Law School, 1964; A.B., University of Mississippi, 1961. ** Philip Schradle, Special Counsel to the Attorney General; J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1980; B.A., Stanford University, 1974.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Administrative Procedures Act, Or. Rev. Stat. 183.300183.750 (2005).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Concerns about the appropriate scope of judicial review of government actions were raised well before the mid-1980s. See, e.g., Donald W. Brodie and Hans Linde, State Court Review of Administrative Action: Prescribing the Scope of Review, 1977 Ariz. St. L.J. 537 (1977). The mid-1980s, however, saw a coalescence of efforts to pursue legislative reform for review of government actions in Oregon.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Barbara J. Safriet, Judicial Review of Government Action: Procedural Quandaries and a Plea for Legislative Reform, 15 Envtl. L. 217, 218 (1985).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 21819.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Forman v. Clatsop County, 681 P.2d 786, 788 (1984) (Peterson, C.J., concurring).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT H.B. 2362, 66th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1991); S.B. 305, 65th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1989); H.B. 2306, 64th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1987); H.B. 2256, 63rd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1985) .  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT House Bill 2256 from 1985 passed the House but then was tabled in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 1985, where it remained on sine die. State of Or., Journals and Calendars of the Senate and House, H-61, Reg. Sess. (1985). The 1987 effort, House Bill 2306, passed as a minority report only applicable to review of land use decisions, leaving other review of state agencies untouched. 1987 Or. Laws 1627. In 1989, Senate Bill 305 remained in the Senate Judiciary Committee upon adjournment after one public hearing and one work session. State of Or., Journals and Calendars of the Senate and House, S-71, Reg. Sess. (1989). At sine die of the 1991 session, House Bill 2362 was in the House Judiciary Committee. State of Or., Senate and House Journal, H-71, Reg. Sess. (1991).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Michael D. Reynolds, Judicial Review Reform: The Oregon Judicial Conferences Response 3-7 (1995) (on file with journal).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT S.B. 107, 68th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1995).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Memorandum from the Or. Judicial Dept to the Legislative Assembly (May 5, 1995) (on file with journal) (responding to questions about Senate Bill 107).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 4.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Memorandum from the Or. Judicial Dept, supra note 9; see also Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review for Government Actions: Alternative View Report, 72nd Sess., at 3 (2003) (prepared by Ruth Spetter, Paul Elsner, and Scott Parker) (voicing concern over the way the bill defines administrative act as it expands the kinds of non-actions that may currently be litigated).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See, e.g., Judicial Review Act: Introductory Hearing on Senate Bill 107 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Jan. 16, 1995), in 68th Leg. Reg. Sess. 4 (Or. 1995) (testimony of Paul Snider, Association of Oregon Counties).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT State of Or. Journal of the Senate, S-22, Reg. Sess. (1995).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Letter from John A. Kitzhaber, Governor of Or., to Phil Keisling, Or. Secy of State (July 21, 1995), in State of OR. Journal of the Senate, SJ-193 (1995).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Letter from Henry H. Lazenby, Jr., Governors Legal Counsel, to Michael Reynolds, Assistant Solicitor Gen., Or. Dept. of Justice (dated February 12, 1996).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Memorandum from Or. Admin. Agencies (July 16, 1996) (on file with journal) (citing concerns such as the introduction of new terms and possible unintentional repeal of existing law).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT L.C. 909, 68th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1997) (on file with journal).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. 1(3); Or. Rev. Stat. 183.310 (2005) (defining order as any agency action expressed orally or in writing directed to a named person or named persons, other than employees, officers or members of an agency).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Memorandum from Or. Admin. Agencies, supra note 16.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Memorandum from Roy Pulvers, Supreme Court Staff Attorney, to the Governors Natural Resources Cabinet (February 24, 1997) (on file with journal).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT L.C. 909 was never introduced into the session and no bill on judicial review of state agency action was introduced during the 1997 session. See State of Or., Journal of the House of Representatives, Reg. Sess. (1997); State of Or., Journal of the Senate, Reg. Sess. (1997).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Memorandum from David Schuman, Deputy Attorney Gen., to Philip Schradle, Richard Whitman, Roy Pulvers, and Hans Linde (Apr. 29, 1998).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT State of Or., Journal of the House of Representatives, H-272, Reg. Sess. (1999).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT H.B. 3578, 70th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Or. 1999); L.C. 909, 69th Leg. Reg. Sess. (Or. 1997); Memorandum from Roy Pulvers, supra note 21, at 3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Letter from Beth Vargas Duncan, Staff Assoc., League of Or. Cities, to Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair of the House Comm. On Civil Law (Apr. 19, 1999) (on file with journal).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See Or. Rev. Stat. 173.315 (2005).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn., Biennial Report of the Oregon Law Commission 19992001 (2001), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/2001report.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review Procedures Act (2001), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/judicial_report.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Letter from Scott Parker and Jim Coleman, Members, Work Group on Judicial Review of Govt Action, to the Work Group on Judicial Review of Govt Action (Feb. 14, 2000) (on file with journal).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn, Judicial Review Procedures Act supra note 32, at 5-10. The references to Sections in this report refer to the sections of House Bill 2246 as introduced in the 2001 Legislative Assembly.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT State of Or., Journal of the House of Representatives, H-46, Reg. Sess. (2001).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Judicial Review Act: Hearing on H.B. 2246 Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary Subcomm. on Criminal Law March 2, 2001, 2001 Leg. 71st Sess. Tape 17A (Or. 2001).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Comment from Bill Taylor to author Philip Schradle in Capitol hallway during 2001 legislative session.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 14.165; 34.740 (2005); Or. Laws 1332.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 14.165.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Rev. Stat. 34.740.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review Procedures Act (2003), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/judicial_review_report.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 9.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 2 n.*.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review for Government Actions: HB 3027 an Alternate View Report (2003) (prepared by Janice Krem), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/krem_analysis_lc1564_2_6_03.pdf; Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review for Government Actions: Alternate View Report (2003) (prepared by Steven R. Schell), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/ steve_schell_2_03.pdf; Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review for Government Actions: Alternative View Report (2003) (prepared by Ruth Spetter, Paul Elsner, and Scott Parker), available at http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pdf/olc/jud_rev_local_gov_objections_report_ 2_03.pdf.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review for Government Actions: Alternative View Report 2-3, 4 (2003) (prepared by Ruth Spetter, Paul Elsner, and Scott Parker).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT See id. at 2-3.  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT Or. Law Commn., Judicial Review for Government Actions: HB 3027 an Alternate View Report 2 (2003) (prepared by Janice Krem).  ADVANCE \r18 \* MERGEFORMAT . ADVANCE \r5 \* MERGEFORMAT State of Or., Journal of the House of Representatives, H-162, Reg. Sess. (2003).    FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT WLR44-2_Schradle_12_17_07  DATE 12/17/2007  TIME 6:10:06 PM  PAGE 296 WILLAMETTE LAW REVIEW [44:275  FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT WLR44-2_Schradle_12_17_07  DATE 12/17/2007  TIME 6:10:06 PM 2007] judicial review act project  PAGE 295  FILENAME \* MERGEFORMAT WLR44-2_Schradle_12_17_07  DATE 12/17/2007  TIME 6:10:06 PM  PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 275 ^lm g h ' ) * B E ! i " # ( ) qr$%AB78\]hf@hf@5hf@hf@6jhf@hf@0JUhf@hf@NHhiY hiYhf@hf@hf@B*aJphhf@hf@aJ hf@hf@F^ * FEƀfgdf@gdf@+gdiY(gdf@'gdf@ Bc%&ef9:no9:RSlmz{@Ayz9:XY`ade12{|67DE# $ hf@hf@NHjhf@hf@0JU hf@hf@ZF5$x&*,/W011ojjjjjejjjgdf@gdf@GC$Eƀfgdf@GC$Eƀ;fgdf@ $ O P Q!R!!!!!"""""""#########.$/$s$t$$$%%&&?'@''''' ( (N(O(U(V(((V)W)))**.*/*r*s*****1+2+++,,,,--L-M---[.\...////M0jhf@hf@0JUhf@hf@NH hf@hf@WM0U000 1 111111@1111122F2G22233i4j444+5,5<5=555F6G666777788:::::#;$;;;G<H<<<<<==>>>>>>d?e??????hf@hf@0J>jhf@hf@0JUh]mV hf@hhhf@hf@hf@NH hf@hf@hf@hf@6I111A1445:W<>[>??@XAYAZC`DFHK5MOOPgdG agd  @gdG a-gdgd,gd+gdgdf@?@@@I@J@@@AAOAPAWAXAYAdAAABBBB!C"CYCZC\C`DcDDDcEdE(F)F4F5FFFFFGGGGGGUHVHHHHHlImIJJ@KAK}K~KKKKKLLLLMM M M5M7MrMsM hG ahf@ hG ahG ahf@hf@>* hhhf@hf@hf@NHhG a hf@hf@hf@hf@5LsM6N7NNNNNOOOOOOPPPPPPIQJQVRXRRRSSSSTTHTJTTTTTDUEUUUUUAVBVVVWWWWWWWWWX)X*X9Y:Y{Y|YYZZZZZZZ[[#\$\u\v\&]'].]0]]]j^k^^^hG ahf@hf@>* hhhf@hf@hf@NH hf@hf@VPVRHTWWZ.]aaRd\fhkkk%k;noppgdgd9gdgd^^^`` a aaaaIaaaaabbcccc+d,dRdTdedddddee5f6f\f^fpfffffgggghhhhhhNiOiiijjjj k kkkkk$k%k=kckdkJlKlllnmommm"nh9h5hf@hf@5hhG ahf@hf@>* hhhf@hf@hf@NH hf@hf@N"n#n,o-ooocpdpgphppppppp(q)q,r-rrrrraJhf@hf@NHaJhf@hf@aJjhf@hf@0JUhG ahf@hf@>* hhhf@ hf@hf@hf@hf@NH@prwdxxy{}JȇgdG agdZ26gdZ26,gdgdGC$Eƀ*?ij+,ABNOlmnopźƺֺ׺ zh!DhW^:aJh!DhW^6h!DhW^:jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^Uhf@hW^NHhW^ hf@hW^ hf@h)Hh)Hhf@hf@hf@NH hf@hf@hf@hf@B*aJphhf@hf@NHaJhf@hf@aJ0+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABgdf@gdf@NֺvĽTGPnFEƀ)gdf@gdf@FEƀ^fgdf@ $ļżƼǼȼ/0X[cvwĽŽLMTUrstuvGHefghiֿ׿̭̭̭hf@hW^NHjhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^:hf@hW^6NHhf@hW^6jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^UhW^ hf@hW^h!DhW^:@$&\eo FGTV~,NOPQnopqr𪠪h!DhW^6NHh!DhW^6jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^Uhf@hW^h ^p:hf@hW^h ^phf@hW^NHhf@hW^: hf@hW^hf@hW^6?deGLSV^ NOLMNQvw!ϵµ hW^:jhf@hW^:Uhf@hW^: hW^6jhf@hW^0JUhf@hW^6jhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^NH hf@hW^jhf@hW^U@+X*NWJFEƀ^Ӻgdf@C$gdf@gdf@!#+,IJKLMij$%&'(DE noXYvwxyzƿЩjhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^NH hW^:aJhf@hW^:aJhf@hW^6jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^U hf@hW^hf@hW^:B *+HIJKLhi:; ;DMNOlmnop㫶㫶㫶hf@hW^NHjhf@hW^Ujhf@hW^0JUhf@hW^B*NHphhf@hW^B*phhf@hW^: hf@hW^jhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^6?23456RSVWXuvwxy %&GHLsw~?@Pqոjhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^NHhf@hW^h^hf@hW^:jhf@hW^:Uhf@hW^6jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^Uhf@hW^7 hf@hW^hW^<$%)IJKhijkl;<=>?[\g˶öööñˣ˶ööö˘˘˘˘jhf@hW^UhW^hf@hW^6NH hW^:jhf@hW^:Uhf@hW^: hf@hW^hf@hW^hJK6jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^6;JtTq!2G o,gdf@FEƀͺgdf@gh(?IOW[bhi#$_`ajstu𽰨Ԩ~~~~hf@hW^6jhf@hW^6Uhf@hW^hJKhf@hW^hJK:hf@hW^:jhf@hW^:U hhW^hG ahW^6hG ahW^:jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^UhW^ hf@hW^hf@hW^NH0*TUrstuv89FIJQaqr!"?@ABC_`۽欽ν欽ν欽νjhf@hW^:UhW^hf@hW^:hf@hW^NHjhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^U hf@hW^hf@hW^6hf@hW^6NH@ '(+23PQRSTpqt:GQGHefghi !>?@AB^_gop,-׹hf@hW^NHhf@hW^:jhf@hW^:U hf@hW^jhf@hW^0JUhf@hW^6jhf@hW^6UI-JKLMNjk%&'(./234IQRҷy hW^CJhW^0J6;hs0JmHnHu hW^0JjhW^0JUhs:CJmHnHu hW^:CJjhW^:CJUjhKYU hf@hKYhKY hf@hW^jhf@hW^0JUjhf@hW^:Uhf@hW^:/'RSBCDab$a$$ !PBd.a$$ !l PABd.@a$ !PB$d&dNPP&dPgdf@RSTno!",-./56@ABDE[\_`bcd˺˴ hf@h)HhKYhsCJmHnHujhW^CJU hW^CJhs0JmHnHu hW^0JjhW^0JU hW^6;hs:CJmHnHu hW^:CJjhW^:CJUhW^8bcdgdf@B 0 0003&PP:pf@/ =!@ "@ #$@ %@ AD@D NormalOJQJ_HkHmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List nOn _Journal font$d1$a$'CJOJQJ_HkHmHnHsH tH uXOX _Document $ l@@@` mH sH u4@4 Header  !4 @"4 Footer  !:)@1: Page Number OJQJkHROBR _FootNote! lhX@@d8`CJ>OAR> _FootNotePara h`hNOaN _NoterefInTextCJH*OJQJS*aJkHHOqH _NoterefInNoteCJH*OJQJkHBOABB _1StQuoteFNhh]h^hBOABB _2NdQuoteFNh]h^BOABB _3RdQuoteFNh8]h^8BOABB _4ThQuoteFNh]h^ZOZ _1StQuoteTXT$d]^`CJZOZ _2NdQuoteTXT$Hd]^H`CJZOZ _3RdQuoteTXT$d]^`CJZOZ _4ThQuoteTXT$d]^`CJNON _Toc0* $ lPJ]`a$\O\ _Toc18!$ lXPB@JX]^X`a$ZOZ _Toc25"$ lP@Jp]^`pa$TOT _Toc3/# l@P@J(]^(`ZOZ _Toc45$$ lhP@J]^`a$ZOZ _Toc55%$ lhP@J]^`a$XOX _SectionHead&$$ $d*$a$ 56;CJ$\O\_Head1-Article'$$ $d*$a$ 5;CJhOh_AuthorName1-Articles($$ $d*$a$:CJ\O\_AuthorName2-Student)$$ $*$a$:^O^_AuthorName3-BookReview*$$ $*$a$ROR _SubHead1!+$$ $ @x*$a$:ROR _SubHead2!,$$ $ @x*$a$6bOb _SubHead31-$$ $ @px*$^`pa$6bOb _SubHead41.$$ $ @px*$^`pa$6bOb _SubHead51/$$ $ @px*$^`pa$6\O\ _IndexHeading0$$ $dL*$a$5CJ&& TOC 11&!& TOC 22jOj_Contributions-Authors3$$ $ @d8*$a$CJ:O:_END4$$ $d*$a$BORB _WILLogo5$($d0a$5;NOQbN _WILVolume/Issue 6p$d ;CJ:r:  Footnote Text7CJBOB _1stLineQuoteFN 8`414 TOC 39 PF 4A4 TOC 4: PF 4Q4 TOC 5; PF :(@: f@ Line Number CJOJQJ>B@> f@ Body Text=*$ CJOJQJ@&@@ f@Footnote ReferenceH*HH f@ Balloon Text?CJOJQJ^JaJ6U@6 f@ Hyperlink >*B*ph($ 7 9 RlDV!""$'*<-26bp+q2y؟Ԧ.Ϭd  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0d4U  y Q O mYq na2/ !!="%%-&&z'}'d.^* F5x"$'W())))A),,-2W46[6778X9Y9Z;`<>@C5GGHմ᳢OOR.%;ghhjopqx߈ٌג!ڟ(-Ѭ+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABNֲvĵTGPܼ+X*NWJtTq!2G o,'RSBCDabe'0(0+00+000000000000000000000+00,00000-0000000000000000000000000000000000000,000000000000000,00,000000000+0000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000z'@000@000@000@000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000e &&&$ M0?sM^"nA{Ȧ!g-Rdruwxz{}~1PpJbdsvy|ct %?AHSV]hjqu#&A[]doqx ! ! ! *-Jd4RUr03P#&CU s v  , / L y Q o r O m p m '47TYwzq & *-J36Sna&)F2PSp03P/ M P m !!!!!!!""."="["^"{"%#%&%C%%%%&-&K&N&k&&' '('}'TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTK &n 6T T6T 6T¬ 7Tì T7TĬ T4TŬ 4MUƬ RǬ 6TȬ 7Tɬ TVʬ ԎVˬ #̬ T#ͬ #ά #Ϭ QЬ ԗQѬ QҬ TQӬ D#Ԭ #լ #֬ #׬ Uج U٬ dUڬ Ta۬ aܬ |lSݬ T >T T>T >T =T =T T=T =T ?@ABCDEFGHIJ ]]WW""')')LLGG PX$$bbռռ""VV00++ttww>e  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJ=1*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=3*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName8@*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9K*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState9J*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName 8$"KJKJJKJKJKJ@JKJKJKKJJK@K331J13KJKJ3J1KJKJKJKJJKJKKJKJ31KJKJKJKJJKKJKJKJKJJ--<<uC{CGGHJUJ:LGLCYJYM^[^ggqqABղ%+5õCFn#VҼۼ[4:W i&fn-I`X]$s 4Sfp d(1q~gik&'3S-.AD`be33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333גْܒܒϕѕ(+լ߬ABŲƲ$ŴŴssffֺֺooڻڻSTUVοο++jj%%EEwwIIii;;mm33SSvv&&nq%%ii<<\\((IW[bss99IJQSY[^a@@``((QQqqff AAKKkk&'3KMNQS-.AD`eBbeM X%yHSEYx44^4`o(. ^`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH. tt^t`hH. DLD^D`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.0^`0o(. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.yHSEM v        md$        )J)Z269Y@f@!D)H]mViY<[G al_nsW^HKY6W]ocpBNQeG 0G 0G 0y_0]n@d`@Unknownwu_staff Hadley RoseInformation ServicesegoedersGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial9TimesTen5& zaTahoma#1&&&tΖZAtΖZA!4de?2QHX ?f@2RC:\Documents and Settings\wu_stu\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\_SETUP10.dot]THE OREGON LAW COMMISSION S JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT PROJECT: A REFORM EFFORT STILL ON THE HORIZONwu_staffwu_staff  Oh+'0(4@T ht    `THE OREGON LAW COMMISSIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT PROJECT: A REFORM EFFORT STILL ON THE HORIZON wu_staff _SETUP10 wu_staff4Microsoft Office Word@@A@* A@AtΖ՜.+,0l px  NMicron Electronics, Inc.AZ ^THE OREGON LAW COMMISSIONS JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT PROJECT: A REFORM EFFORT STILL ON THE HORIZON Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fp$A1TableWWordDocumentD.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q