## Facts

- Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment reserving to the people initiative and referendum powers over laws and delaying most statutes’ effective dates to permit referendum petitions.
- In 1903, the Oregon Legislature enacted a new charter for the City of Portland that included authority to fund public improvements through special assessments.
- The charter act contained a legislative declaration that it was necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, making it effective immediately under the amendment’s emergency exception.
- Portland property owners and taxpayers sued in equity to enjoin enforcement of the charter and related assessments, arguing the initiative-and-referendum amendment and the charter’s effectiveness were unconstitutional.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint and dismissed; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the initiative-and-referendum amendment was validly adopted under Oregon’s constitutional amendment procedures.
2. Whether initiative and referendum violate the U.S. Constitution’s Guarantee Clause requiring a republican form of government.
3. Whether the 1903 Portland charter took effect immediately under a valid emergency clause despite the general referendum-delay period.
4. Whether the charter’s special-assessment provisions could be enforced against plaintiffs’ property, warranting injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decree sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the suit.
- The court held the initiative-and-referendum amendment was validly adopted and became part of the Oregon Constitution.
- The court held initiative and referendum are consistent with a republican form of government and do not violate the Guarantee Clause.
- The court held the charter act was effective immediately under the emergency exception, deferring to the legislature’s determination absent clear abuse.
- With the charter in force and no independent constitutional defect shown, plaintiffs failed to state a basis for an injunction against the assessments.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional amendment is valid when adopted in conformity with the constitution’s prescribed proposal, approval, submission, and ratification requirements; the constitution need not require submission at a specific time if required approvals and ultimate voter ratification occur.
- A republican form of government is compatible with reserving to the people a portion of legislative power through initiative and referendum so long as representative institutions remain in place.
- Whether a statute is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety” is primarily for legislative judgment; courts will not override that determination absent a clear abuse or facial impossibility of fitting within the exception.
- When a challenged municipal charter and assessments rest chiefly on claims that the underlying constitutional amendment is invalid or the statute is not yet effective, failure of those predicates defeats equitable relief.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Oregon’s initiative-and-referendum amendment against state-procedure and federal Guarantee Clause attacks, treated the legislature’s emergency declaration as sufficient to make Portland’s 1903 charter immediately effective, and denied injunctive relief challenging special assessments imposed under that charter.


Kadderly v. City of Portland, 74 P. 710 (Or. 1903)