LOC News
Court Upholds Annexation Law Despite Challenge by Cities
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the cities of Corvallis and Philomath on Wednesday in a case challenging a state law that compels some annexations without a public vote.
Generally, Oregon law authorizes landowners to petition adjacent cities for annexation of their territory. The law at issue in this case, ORS 222.127, goes a step further by requiring cities to annex the territory if the petition is signed by 100% of landowners, and the land is within an urban growth boundary, among other conditions. For some cities, the decision to annex is not entirely up to them; by the court’s count, at least 33 charters prohibit annexation unless it also is approved by voters. For those cities, ORS 222.127 preempts the local charter and forces the city to annex without an election.
Corvallis and Philomath challenged the law shortly after it was enacted, arguing in City of Corvallis v. State of Oregon that the law infringes on the home rule authority of cities to choose when and where to extend their boundaries. The side argued that cities have inherent authority to decide when to annex, i.e., through an election, and that state law cannot make that decision for them. Accordingly, the cities challenged the law as unconstitutional under the home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution, alleging that it is unconstitutional “on its face” and “as applied” to them.
The Court of Appeals issued a narrow ruling upholding the law against the two cities. The court cited key exceptions in the cities’ charters that waive election requirements if an annexation is “mandated by state law.” The court found that ORS 222.127 is the sort of state-mandated annexation that voters had contemplated when adopting their charters, and so the cities’ authority to choose annexation, to the extent they have this authority, was not at issue here.
The Court of Appeals also noted that some city charters require an election on every annexation, regardless of whether it is mandated by state law. Significantly, the court chose not to address those charters here. The court found that a law is facially unconstitutional only if it “is incapable of constitutional application in any circumstance.” Because the law did not violate the Oregon Constitution as applied to Corvallis and Philomath, it could not be found unconstitutional on its face, even if its application to other cities might be unconstitutional.
The LOC intervened in this case before the circuit court and filed an amicus brief on appeal.
Contact: Colton Totland, Honors Attorney - ctotland@orcities.org
Last Updated 5/15/20