Foote v. State of Oregon

Under ORS 28.020, declaratory relief may be sought by "[a]ny person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such instrument."

The State appealed a declaratory judgment from the circuit court invalidating a 2017 sentencing statute.  The State assigned error to the circuit court's granting of declaratory judgment and contended that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the declaratory judgment action.  The circuit court had found that Plaintiffs had standing as electors who voted on earlier measures and were deprived of derived benefits, but rejected a second theory of standing which the plaintiffs advanced in this case that Plaintiff Foote had standing in his official capacity as a district attorney seeking to root out "uncertainty" about his duties.  The State argued that the "uncertainty" theory was rejected in Gortmaker v. Seaton, 252 Or 440, 450 P2d 547 (1969), when the Court concluded that district attorneys were not meant to be included within the meaning of ORS 28.020. Under ORS 28.020, declaratory relief may be sought by "[a]ny person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such instrument."  The Court held that (1) that the Plaintiffs as voters did not have an affected "legally recognized" interest and (2) Gortmaker remains good law and therefore Foote lacked standing.  The judgment of the circuit court was vacated, and the case was remanded to the circuit court to dismiss the complaint.