Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035 (2026)

Form of ballot titles for state and local measures

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

250.035 Form of ballot titles for state and local measures. (1) The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of:

(a) A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure;

(b) A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and

(2) The ballot title of any state measure to be initiated or referred shall consist of:

(a) A caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure. The caption of an initiative or referendum amendment to the Constitution shall begin with the phrase, “Amends Constitution,” which shall not be counted for purposes of the 15-word caption limit;

(b) A simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved. The statement required by this paragraph shall include either the phrase, “I vote” or “vote yes,” or a substantially similar phrase, which may be placed at any point within the statement;

(c) A simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is rejected. The statement required by this paragraph shall not describe existing statutory or constitutional provisions in a way that would lead an average elector to believe incorrectly that one of those provisions would be repealed by approval of the state measure, if approval would not have that result. Any thing or action described both in the statement required by paragraph (b) of this subsection and in the statement required by this paragraph shall be described using the same terms in both statements, to the extent practical. Any different terms must be terms that an average elector would understand to refer to the same thing or action. The statement shall include either the phrase, “I vote” or “vote no,” or a substantially similar phrase, which may be placed at any point within the statement; and

(d) A concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect.

(3) The statements required by subsection (2)(b) and (c) of this section shall be written so that, to the extent practicable, the language of the two statements is parallel.

(4) The statement required by subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be written so that an affirmative response to the statement corresponds to an affirmative vote on the state measure.

(5) The statement required by subsection (2)(c) of this section shall be written so that an affirmative response to the statement corresponds to a negative vote on the state measure.

(6) In the statements required by subsection (2)(b), (c) and (d) of this section, reasonable discretion shall be allowed in the use of articles and conjunctions, but the statements shall not omit articles and conjunctions that are necessary to avoid confusion to or misunderstanding by an average elector. [1979 c.190 §143; 1979 c.675 §1; 1985 c.405 §1; 1987 c.556 §1; 1987 c.875 §1; 1995 c.534 §1; 1997 c.541 §312; 1999 c.793 §1; 2001 c.104 §78; 2009 c.566 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 524 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Carlson v. Myers, 959 P.2d 31 (Or. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carlson v. Myers, 959 P.2d 31 (Or. 1998). · cites it 171× “We review the Attorney General's certified ballot titles for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5). Petitioner challenges the caption, result statements, and summary of each of the five certified ballot titles, arguing that the ballot titles…”

Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). · cites it 91× “085(5), [4] is to determine whether the Attorney General's decision to certify a particular ballot title for a particular proposed measure constitutes "substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.”

Novick/Crew v. Myers, 100 P.3d 1064 (Or. 2004). · cites it 33× “We review the Attorney General's ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). ORS 250.085(5). NOVICK PETITION Petitioner Novick asserts that the Attorney General's "yes" vote result statement fails to describe the result if…”

Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 46), 909 P.2d 1216 (Or. 1996). · cites it 76× “085(5), we review the Attorney General's certified ballot title for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035. We address each segment of the ballot title separately.”

Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 905 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1995). · cites it 35× “We review the Attorney General's ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5); see, e.g., Hand v.”

Mabon v. Myers, 33 P.3d 988 (Or. 2001). · cites it 22× “Measure requires citizens, `in humility and obedience to Nature's God,' *990 to `protect' from `mortal harm' all `innocent Human Life,' [']acknowledging,' `protecting' `Human Person' from fertilization until `natural death.”

Greene v. Kulongoski, 903 P.2d 366 (Or. 1995). · cites it 20× “" Petitioner argues that the Attorney General's certified ballot title does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035 or former 250.039. [1] She contends that the caption *369 fails to identify reasonably the subject of the measure, that the question fails to state clearly the…”

Baker v. Keisling, 822 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1991). · cites it 34× “State may not recognize this conduct under "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference" labels, or through "quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or similar concepts.”

Nelson v. Roberts, 789 P.2d 650 (Or. 1990). · cites it 24× “Fund distributes 60% to state, 40% to counties, for smoking-related and general health programs.”

Flanagan v. Myers, 30 P.3d 408 (Or. 2001). · cites it 13× “We review the Attorney General’s certified ballot titles to determine whether they “substantial[ly] complfy] with the requirements of ORS 250.035.” See ORS 250.085(5) (stating that standard).”

Phillips v. Myers, 936 P.2d 964 (Or. 1997). · cites it 18× “085(5), we review that title for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035. CAPTION ORS 250.035(2)(a) requires a "caption of not more than 10 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure.”

Nesbitt v. Myers, 71 P.3d 530 (Or. 2003). · cites it 14× “, we review to “determine whether the modified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035.” ORS 250.085(9). Petitioners assert that the Attorney General’s modified ballot title in this case fails that test with respect to each of the ballot title’s…”

Show all 524 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(1) — 52 cases

Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). “085(5), [4] is to determine whether the Attorney General's decision to certify a particular ballot title for a particular proposed measure constitutes "substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.”

Nelson v. Roberts, 789 P.2d 650 (Or. 1990). “Fund distributes 60% to state, 40% to counties, for smoking-related and general health programs.”

Baker v. Keisling, 822 P.2d 1162 (Or. 1991). “State may not recognize this conduct under "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference" labels, or through "quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or similar concepts.”

Nakamoto v. Kulongoski, 904 P.2d 165 (Or. 1995).

Greene v. Kulongoski, 903 P.2d 366 (Or. 1995). “" Petitioner argues that the Attorney General's certified ballot title does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035 or former 250.039. [1] She contends that the caption *369 fails to identify reasonably the subject of the measure, that the question fails to state clearly the…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(1)(a) — 31 cases

Hall v. Paulus, 643 P.2d 343 (Or. 1982).

Aughenbaugh v. Roberts, 789 P.2d 656 (Or. 1990).

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 777 P.2d 406 (Or. 1989).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(1)(b) — 28 cases

Dale v. Kulongoski, 894 P.2d 462 (Or. 1995).

Witt v. Kulongoski, 872 P.2d 14 (Or. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(1)(c) — 28 cases

Nelson v. Roberts, 789 P.2d 650 (Or. 1990). “Fund distributes 60% to state, 40% to counties, for smoking-related and general health programs.”

Witt v. Kulongoski, 872 P.2d 14 (Or. 1994).

Dale v. Kulongoski, 894 P.2d 462 (Or. 1995).

Nakamoto v. Kulongoski, 904 P.2d 165 (Or. 1995).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(1)(e) — 1 case

DeParrie v. Keisling, 862 P.2d 494 (Or. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(1997) — 1 case

Novick v. Myers, 998 P.2d 1258 (Or. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(2) — 245 cases

Carlson v. Myers, 959 P.2d 31 (Or. 1998). “We review the Attorney General's certified ballot titles for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5). Petitioner challenges the caption, result statements, and summary of each of the five certified ballot titles, arguing that the ballot titles…”

Whitsett v. Kroger, 230 P.3d 545 (Or. 2010).

Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 46), 909 P.2d 1216 (Or. 1996). “085(5), we review the Attorney General's certified ballot title for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035. We address each segment of the ballot title separately.”

Novick/Crew v. Myers, 100 P.3d 1064 (Or. 2004). “We review the Attorney General's ballot title to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035(2). ORS 250.085(5). NOVICK PETITION Petitioner Novick asserts that the Attorney General's "yes" vote result statement fails to describe the result if…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(2)(a) — 223 cases

Mabon v. Myers, 33 P.3d 988 (Or. 2001). “Measure requires citizens, `in humility and obedience to Nature's God,' *990 to `protect' from `mortal harm' all `innocent Human Life,' [']acknowledging,' `protecting' `Human Person' from fertilization until `natural death.”

Terhune v. Myers, 154 P.3d 1284 (Or. 2007).

Kain/Waller v. Myers, 93 P.3d 62 (Or. 2004).

Nearman/Miller v. Rosenblum, 371 P.3d 1186 (Or. 2016).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(2)(b) — 140 cases

Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 905 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1995). “We review the Attorney General's ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5); see, e.g., Hand v.”

Novick v. Myers, 35 P.3d 1017 (Or. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(2)(c) — 68 cases

Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 905 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1995). “We review the Attorney General's ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5); see, e.g., Hand v.”

Nesbitt v. Myers, 71 P.3d 530 (Or. 2003). “, we review to “determine whether the modified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035.” ORS 250.085(9). Petitioners assert that the Attorney General’s modified ballot title in this case fails that test with respect to each of the ballot title’s…”

Greenberg v. Myers, 127 P.3d 1192 (Or. 2006).

Kain v. Myers, 64 P.3d 1129 (Or. 2003).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(2)(d) — 148 cases

Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 47), 909 P.2d 1223 (Or. 1996).

Whitsett v. Kroger, 230 P.3d 545 (Or. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(2)(á) — 1 case

Brummell v. Kulongoski, 921 P.2d 388 (Or. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(3) — 24 cases

Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 905 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1995). “We review the Attorney General's ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5); see, e.g., Hand v.”

Carson v. Myers, 951 P.2d 700 (Or. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(3)(1997) — 1 case

Wilkeson v. Myers, 992 P.2d 456 (Or. 1999).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(4) — 4 cases

Mannix v. Kulongoski, 918 P.2d 839 (Or. 1996).

Carson v. Myers, 951 P.2d 700 (Or. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(6) — 12 cases

Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 47), 909 P.2d 1223 (Or. 1996).

SAIF Corp. v. Donahue-Birran, 96 P.3d 1282 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Dirks v. Myers, 993 P.2d 808 (Or. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(a) — 3 cases

Dale v. Myers, 980 P.2d 157 (Or. 1999).

Frazzini v. Myers, 189 P.3d 1227 (Or. 2008).

Frazzini v. Myers (Or. 2008).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(b) — 2 cases

Dale v. Myers, 980 P.2d 157 (Or. 1999).

Pac. Power & Light Co. v. Paulus, 645 P.2d 1057 (Or. 1982).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(c) — 1 case

Nelson v. Keisling, 830 P.2d 591 (Or. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(l)(a) — 35 cases

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 777 P.2d 406 (Or. 1989).

Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 905 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1995). “We review the Attorney General's ballot title for substantial compliance with ORS 250.035. ORS 250.085(5); see, e.g., Hand v.”

Reed v. Roberts, 748 P.2d 542 (Or. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(l)(b) — 32 cases

Dale v. Kulongoski, 894 P.2d 462 (Or. 1995).

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 777 P.2d 406 (Or. 1989).

Reed v. Roberts, 748 P.2d 542 (Or. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.035(l)(c) — 35 cases

Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Roberts, 777 P.2d 406 (Or. 1989).

Dale v. Kulongoski, 894 P.2d 462 (Or. 1995).

Nakamoto v. Kulongoski, 904 P.2d 165 (Or. 1995).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.