アメリカ憲法における直接民主主義の要素と司法権の役割 : 単一主題のルールに関するOregon州最高裁判所の判決を素材として

Abstract

Unlike the United States Constitution, which has been amended only twentyseven times since its adoption in 1787, state constitutions are generally easy to reform and have been changed quite often throughout American history. As the validity of a state constitutional amendment is frequently challenged in court, state judiciaries play a significant role in monitoring the process of constitutional changes. One of the typical situations in which the court steps in to issue an injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing an otherwise effective constitutional amendment is when it actually contains two or more amendments, despite having been presented to the voters in the form of a single constitutional amendment. This so-called single subject rule is designed to prevent voter confusion and ballot manipulation. Relying on state constitutional provisions embodying this rule, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated a comprehensive constitutional amendment that would have established a variety of “crime victims’ rights,” placed before the voters through an initiative petition and approved by a 59 to 41 percent margin. The decision can be best understood as an expression of the state supreme court's commitment to the rule of law, according to which constitutional discourse about individual rights should not be dominated by populist politics.