the senate, and despite the publicly announced opposition of then-Governor Barbara Roberts, it faced little organized resistance. Oregon voters approved the measure by a margin of more than two to one, casting 1,003,706 votes in favor and only 439,694 against enactment. The Oregonian summarized the arguments in favor and against the Measure put forth in the campaign, as outlined below: Arguments of proponents Refresh the political system, removing legislators who had become career politicians and grown out of touch with their constituents. Reduce the excessive time and attention spent on getting re-elected, and dependence of lawmakers on special interests for re-election campaign funds. Incumbents have too great an electoral advantage. Lawmakers are in gridlock because of becoming locked into entrenched positions over time. Freed from political considerations related to re-election, lawmakers would be more free to vote on the merits. The state and federal constitutions already limit terms in other offices. Arguments of opponents Voters can already remove politicians through regular elections or by recall. Term limits don't distinguish between good and bad legislators. The measure doesn't deal with the root problems of election finance and ethics reform. New lawmakers are more vulnerable to power wielded by lobbyists, staff, bureaucracy, and the media. Term limits won't affect gridlock, being a quick-fix that ignores complicated problems. Limiting terms deprives voters of the right to choose whom they want in office. Court challenges U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton In 1995, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered section 20 of Measure 3, relating to the terms of members of both houses of Congress, invalid under the federal Constitution, ruling that states lacked authority to impose restrictions on the qualifications for federal office. It was silent on the broader issue of the constitutionality of term limits, nor did it address the matter of state offices, and thus the remaining provisions of Measure 3's amendment of the state constitution were left in place. Markham v. Keisling In September, 1997, State Representative Bill Markham, a Republican, filed suit in the U.S. District Court alleging the law was unconstitutional on the grounds it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment voting and association rights of incumbents and voters. On December 16, 1997, Judge Magistrate Thomas Coffin ruled in favor of Markham, but later reversed himself in accordance with a December 19, 1997, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding California’s term limits law, concluding