City of Corvallis v. State of Oregon

ORS 222.127, which allows a city’s legislative body to annex certain territory within its boundary “without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city” if specific conditions are met, does not violate the “home rule” provisions of the Oregon Constitution.

The cities of Corvallis and Philomath (Corvallis/Philomath) filed a declaratory judgment action and sought to have ORS 222.127 declared unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution’s “home rule” provisions. The trial court denied Corvallis/Philomath’s cross-motions for summary judgment. Corvallis/Philomath challenged the trial court’s rejection of their facial and as-applied challenges to ORS 222.127.  Corvallis/Philomath, argued the statute “impermissibly interferes with the procedures of municipal governments.”  The State argued the statute “is not facially unconstitutional, because, at minimum, it is capable of constitutional application as to cities whose charters do not conflict,” as ORS 222.127 allows a city’s legislative body to annex certain territory within its boundary “without submitting the proposal to the electors of the city,” if specific conditions are met, and therefore, does not violate the “home rule” provisions of the Oregon Constitution.  The Court agreed with the State.  The as-applied challenge failed because the “prerequisite to challenging the constitutionality of a law as applied” was not met. City of Eugene v. Lincoln, 183 Or App 36, 41 (2002).  The Court rejected the cities’ attempt to distinguish state-mandated annexation and state-mandated process for annexation, as the charter provisions allow for annexation without a citizen vote if mandated by state law.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the merits but found the judgment defective.  Vacated and remanded for a judgment declaring party rights.