Appeals judges ponder whether Oregonians soon vote on gay rights law

   PORTLAND — What The Oregonian described as a panel of “skeptical” federal judges last month heard arguments over whether a statewide vote to overturn one of Oregon’s new homosexual rights laws should be scheduled as soon as this November.
   A three-member panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 8 in Portland heard arguments from a Christian legal advocacy agency on why such an election should be mandated.
   The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, representing concerned Christian groups in Oregon and defending what it considers disenfranchised voters, contends that Oregon elections officials wrongly disqualified a referendum on the state’s new domestic partnerships law.
   That law, which had been passed early last year by the state Legislature and signed by the governor, gives many of the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples who register.
   The Christian groups say the new law runs counter to the state’s marriage protection amendment passed by voters in 2004, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
   Officials in several Oregon counties said last year’s statewide petition drive to get the referendum on this November’s ballot narrowly fell short of the number of voter signatures needed. The petition drive had involved heavy participation by churches statewide.
   Alliance Defense Fund then filed suit in federal court, alleging that the county clerks and Oregon’s secretary of state wrongfully rejected valid citizens’ petition signatures.
   A federal district judge in Portland initially delayed the domestic partnership law from going into effect, but on Feb. 1 rejected the lawsuit. Since then, more than 2,000 gay and lesbian couples have registered as domestic partners statewide.
   David Crowe of Concerned Oregonians, one of the Christian groups, wrote in an e-mail to his constituents that the main issue of last month’s hearing was whether Oregonians’ right to have an accurate and valid initiative petition process would be upheld.
  “While the net effect of a positive ruling from the Ninth Circuit judges may indeed place the domestic partnerships bill on the November ballot, the case is about whether elected and non-elected public officials have an obligation to respect the law and the rights of those they are called to serve,” Crowe wrote.
   According to The Oregonian, Alliance Defense Fund lead attorney Austin Nimocks told the panel that Oregon’s system of qualifying initiatives and referendums was unconstitutional because it arbitrarily discounted some valid signatures.
   But Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Harry Pregerson and Ted Goodwin all challenged Nimocks. Reinhardt said the state’s system actually seemed to count more invalid signatures than it excluded valid ones.
   Margaret Olney, who represented Basic Rights Oregon, a homosexual rights group that supports the domstic partnership law, said states have different systems for signature verifying, but that Oregon’s was well within the norm, the newspaper reported.
   The Ninth Circuit judges who held the hearing last month did not indicate when they would issue a decision, but would need to do so quickly if the referendum is to be on the Nov. 4 ballot.
   The secretary of state’s deadline for certifying initiatives is Aug. 2, and the deadline for telling county election officials statewide what to place on the November ballot is Sept. 4.