I wrote back in November about a legal effort to disqualify ten of the twelve Republicans in the Oregon state senate from running for reelection for using a tactic popular among Democrats to bring legislative majorities to a halt:

Measure 113, which was adopted last fall in Oregon, would bar from reelection any legislator with ten or more unexcused absences. The proposal, pushed by public-sector labor unions and barely even opposed by Oregon Republicans who were focused on the governor’s race, is now being wielded to disqualify ten of the twelve members of the Republican caucus in the state Senate (this includes nine Republicans and one ex-Republican independent). That’s because Oregon Republicans have repeatedly used walkouts to stop the upper chamber from doing business, as a way of stymieing extreme Democratic proposals on abortion, guns, transgender surgeries, and other issues. . . .

This is, mind you, a much more serious penalty than what Republicans imposed on two legislators in Tennessee (who were expelled and then immediately reelected), or one in Montana (who was barred from speaking on the floor for the rest of the session). This is a political death penalty for an entire caucus. And yet, the hue and cry that went up about the ominous signs for democracy from Tennessee and Montana has been absent from the national political press. We haven’t seen Chuck Schumer and the Biden White House denouncing the Oregon legislature and secretary of state and demanding a federal investigation of the effort to deprive the state’s Republican voters of their choice of representatives.

Well, it worked. Yesterday, the all-Democrat-appointed Oregon supreme court unanimously upheld the Oregon secretary of state’s ruling that the ten — the Oregon Ten, if you will — are barred from seeking reelection in 2024. In its legal analysis, the court concluded that any ambiguity in the text of the amendment as to when it applies was resolved by the voter pamphlet distributed before the referendum. There is, of course, rich irony in a rule pushed by public-employee unions that imposes consequences for walking off the job.

The bigger issue isn’t the legal question of the effective date of the amendment, but the escalatory tactic of disqualifying incumbents from seeking reelection if they disrupt legislative business in this way.

The tactic isn’t available everywhere:

Oregon is one of four states that requires a two-thirds majority in the Legislature to meet a quorum. In the majority of states, a quorum can be reached by a majority vote, meaning that a walkout by the minority party would not prevent legislative action. Since there are 17 Democrats in the 30-person Oregon Senate, that means at least three minority party senators will have to show up each day during the five-week session for the chamber to conduct business.

Oregon Republicans, with few levers of power, were unsurprisingly appalled:

Oregon Senate Republican Minority Leader Tim Knopp, who led the boycott, said in a statement: “We obviously disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. But more importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the chilling impact this decision will have to crush dissent.”

The amendment might not stop walkouts by making martyrs out of legislators who participate:

Republican strategists, however, said Thursday’s ruling might not serve as the deterrent many expect. Bryan Iverson, legislative director for the Oregon Senate Republicans, said some lawmakers might be willing to forgo reelection to kill Democratic bills they fervently oppose and that participating in a walkout could help boost the public image of lawmakers preparing to run for higher office. During his run for Congress, U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz emphasized the role he played in a Republican walkout at the statehouse that successfully killed a climate cap-and-trade bill.

It also leaves the punished legislators with no further incentive to cooperate:

Knopp, the Senate Republican leader now officially blocked from seeking reelection this year, suggested Wednesday that the outcome of the case could have a bearing on how that session plays out. “I think we win either way, quite frankly,” he said. “If the court sides with us, it’s a clear victory. If it doesn’t, I think we still win because our members literally have no reason to show up. And so in order for them to show up, they’re going to want to see that they’re going to be able to make a difference.”

The big question now is whether Republican-controlled states will play similar hardball with minority-party Democrats who stand in their way. The proliferation of walkouts and the dramatic retaliation of disqualifying their participants are both further emblems of the scorched-earth politics of our present age.