ballot title challenge in Oregon

2016Cf. McCann v. Rosenblum, 355 Or 256, 262 , 323 P3d 955 (2014) (explaining that “a ballot title challenge ordinarily is not the appropriate forum for deciding legal issues that require interpretation of a proposed measure”).

2016Cf. McCann v. Rosenblum, 355 Or 256, 262 , 323 P3d 955 (2014) (explaining that “a ballot title challenge ordinarily is not the appropriate forum for deciding legal issues that require interpretation of a proposed measure”).

2014As this court explained in Straube/McEvilly v. Myers, 340 Or 395, 399 , 133 P3d 897 (2006), ORS 250.085(8) *378 gives this court statutory authority either to refer a ballot title that does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035 to the Attorney General for modification or “to correct an errant ballot title and to certify the resulting ballot title to the Secretary of State.” The ballot title error that we have identified in this proceeding is an acknowledged scrivener’s error, the correction of which is straightforward and ministerial.

2014As this court explained in Straube/McEvilly v. Myers, 340 Or 395, 399 , 133 P3d 897 (2006), ORS 250.085(8) *378 gives this court statutory authority either to refer a ballot title that does not substantially comply with ORS 250.035 to the Attorney General for modification or “to correct an errant ballot title and to certify the resulting ballot title to the Secretary of State.” The ballot title error that we have identified in this proceeding is an acknowledged scrivener’s error, the correction of which is straightforward and ministerial.

2016In the past, this court often stated that determinations of the constitutionality of a proposed measure are not within the scope of the ballot title certification process. 3 In Kane v. Kulongoski, 320 Or 273, 277-78 , 882 P2d 588 (1994), this court applied that principle to a ballot title challenge that was based on the asserted preemption of the subject of the measure by federal law.

2016In the past, this court often stated that determinations of the constitutionality of a proposed measure are not within the scope of the ballot title certification process. 3 In Kane v. Kulongoski, 320 Or 273, 277-78 , 882 P2d 588 (1994), this court applied that principle to a ballot title challenge that was based on the asserted preemption of the subject of the measure by federal law.

2009The measure penalizes any person or entity that uses for a political purpose money collected in whole or in part through the use of “a public resource” or that “commingles” money so collected with “political funds.” If a person or entity violates the prohibition, the person or entity must pay a civil penalty of twice the amount of money spent in violation of the measure, and, thereafter, “no public employer or government entity shall collect money for any purpose for that person or entity.” In its prohibition of the use of “public resources” to collect money that is used or commingled with mon

2009The measure penalizes any person or entity that uses for a political purpose money collected in whole or in part through the use of “a public resource” or that “commingles” money so collected with “political funds.” If a person or entity violates the prohibition, the person or entity must pay a civil penalty of twice the amount of money spent in violation of the measure, and, thereafter, “no public employer or government entity shall collect money for any purpose for that person or entity.” In its prohibition of the use of “public resources” to collect money that is used or commingled with mon

2007We decided a ballot title challenge regarding Initiative Petition 48 in Sizemore/Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 578 , 157 P3d 188 (2007).

2007We decided a ballot title challenge regarding Initiative Petition 48 in Sizemore/Terhune v. Myers, 342 Or 578 , 157 P3d 188 (2007).

2006Although we have allowed petitioner's belated motion, we note that, in the future, a petitioner who files an overlong petition in a ballot title case without first obtaining leave to do so runs a substantial risk that the court will strike the petition and dismiss the ballot title challenge without further notice." 340 Or. at 86 , 127 P.3d at 1183 .

2006Although we have allowed petitioner's belated motion, we note that, in the future, a petitioner who files an overlong petition in a ballot title case without first obtaining leave to do so runs a substantial risk that the court will strike the petition and dismiss the ballot title challenge without further notice." 340 Or. at 86 , 127 P.3d at 1183 .

1996This court referred to it then as a "multi-subject measure." Crumpton v. Keisling, 317 Or. 322, 326 , 855 P.2d 1107 (1993). [4] In Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118, 144 , 74 P. 710 (1903), reh. den. 75 P. 222 (1904), this court upheld the 1902 amendment to Article IV, section 1, that established the right of initiative as a right with constitutional status.

1996This court referred to it then as a "multi-subject measure." Crumpton v. Keisling, 317 Or. 322, 326 , 855 P.2d 1107 (1993). [4] In Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118, 144 , 74 P. 710 (1903), reh. den. 75 P. 222 (1904), this court upheld the 1902 amendment to Article IV, section 1, that established the right of initiative as a right with constitutional status.

1996This court referred to it then as a "multi-subject measure." Crumpton v. Keisling, 317 Or. 322, 326 , 855 P.2d 1107 (1993). [4] In Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Or. 118, 144 , 74 P. 710 (1903), reh. den. 75 P. 222 (1904), this court upheld the 1902 amendment to Article IV, section 1, that established the right of initiative as a right with constitutional status.

1996This court referred to it then as a “multi-subject measure.” Crumpton v. Keisling, 317 Or 322, 326 , 855 P2d 1107 (1993).

1996This court referred to it then as a “multi-subject measure.” Crumpton v. Keisling, 317 Or 322, 326 , 855 P2d 1107 (1993).

1995NOTES [1] This opinion labels as "proposed" the title certified to the Secretary of State by the Attorney General to avoid confusion with the "certified title" that this court produces at the end of a ballot title challenge proceeding. [2] The measure uses the term "fair share." ORS 243.650(10) defines the term: "`Fair-share agreement' means an agreement between the public employer and the recognized or certified bargaining representative of public employees whereby employees who are not members of the employee organization are required to make an in-lieu-of-dues payment to an employee organiz

1995NOTES [1] This opinion labels as "proposed" the title certified to the Secretary of State by the Attorney General to avoid confusion with the "certified title" that this court produces at the end of a ballot title challenge proceeding. [2] The measure uses the term "fair share." ORS 243.650(10) defines the term: "`Fair-share agreement' means an agreement between the public employer and the recognized or certified bargaining representative of public employees whereby employees who are not members of the employee organization are required to make an in-lieu-of-dues payment to an employee organiz

1990In Kafoury v. Roberts, 303 Or 306 , 736 P2d 178 (1987), this court was faced with a ballot title challenge from a petitioner whose only challenge to a proposed ballot title was worded as follows: “Dear Ms. Roberts: “On behalf of [the principal petitioners for the initiative measure], I suggest the following language for the Ballot Title for the Trojan Initiative: *321 [There followed a suggested ballot title different than that proposed to the Secretary of State by the Attorney General.] “It is an improvement, don’t you think?” Faced with a case in which the foregoing was the only challenge pe

1990In Kafoury v. Roberts, 303 Or 306 , 736 P2d 178 (1987), this court was faced with a ballot title challenge from a petitioner whose only challenge to a proposed ballot title was worded as follows: “Dear Ms. Roberts: “On behalf of [the principal petitioners for the initiative measure], I suggest the following language for the Ballot Title for the Trojan Initiative: *321 [There followed a suggested ballot title different than that proposed to the Secretary of State by the Attorney General.] “It is an improvement, don’t you think?” Faced with a case in which the foregoing was the only challenge pe