Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085 (2026)

Procedure for elector dissatisfied with ballot title of state measure; Supreme Court review of title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      250.085 Procedure for elector dissatisfied with ballot title of state measure; Supreme Court review of title. (1) Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title prepared by the Legislative Assembly for a measure referred to the people by the assembly and filed with the Secretary of State may petition the Supreme Court seeking a different title. The petition shall state the reasons that the title filed with the Secretary of State does not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035.

      (2) Any elector dissatisfied with the latest ballot title for an initiated or referred measure certified by the Attorney General and who timely submitted written comments on the draft ballot title may petition the Supreme Court seeking a different title. The petition shall state the reasons that the title filed with the Secretary of State does not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035.

      (3) The petition shall name the Attorney General as the respondent and must be filed:

      (a) Not later than the 10th business day after the Attorney General certifies a ballot title or a corrected ballot title to the Secretary of State, whichever is later; or

      (b) If the title is provided by the Legislative Assembly under ORS 250.075, not later than the 10th business day after the Legislative Assembly files the ballot title with the Secretary of State.

      (4) An elector filing a petition under this section shall notify the Secretary of State in writing that the petition has been filed. The notice must be received in the office of the Secretary of State not later than 5 p.m. on the next business day following the day the petition is filed.

      (5) The Supreme Court shall review the title for substantial compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035.

      (6) When reviewing a title certified by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court shall not consider arguments concerning the ballot title not presented in writing to the Secretary of State unless the court determines that the argument concerns language added to or removed from the draft title after expiration of the comment period provided in ORS 250.067.

      (7) The review by the Supreme Court shall be conducted expeditiously to ensure the orderly and timely circulation of the petition or conduct of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to the electors.

      (8) If the Supreme Court determines that the latest ballot title certified by the Attorney General or prepared by the Legislative Assembly substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035, the court shall certify the title to the Secretary of State. If the Supreme Court determines that the latest ballot title certified by the Attorney General or prepared by the Legislative Assembly does not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035, the court shall modify the ballot title and certify the ballot title to the Secretary of State or refer the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

      (9) Not later than five business days after the Supreme Court refers a ballot title to the Attorney General under this section, the Attorney General shall file a modified ballot title with the Supreme Court and serve copies of the modified ballot title on all parties to the ballot title review proceeding. If no party to the ballot title review proceeding files an objection to the modified ballot title within five business days after the date the modified ballot title is filed, the Supreme Court shall certify the modified ballot title to the Secretary of State and enter an appellate judgment the next judicial day. If any of the parties to the ballot title review proceeding timely files a petition objecting to the modified ballot title, the Supreme Court shall review the modified ballot title to determine whether the modified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035.

      (10) Upon the filing of a petition under subsection (9) of this section objecting to a modified ballot title:

      (a) If the Supreme Court determines that the modified ballot title substantially complies with the requirements of ORS 250.035, the court shall certify the modified ballot title to the Secretary of State; or

      (b) If the Supreme Court determines that the modified ballot title does not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.035, the court shall modify the ballot title and certify the ballot title to the Secretary of State or refer the modified ballot title to the Attorney General for additional modification and further proceedings under subsection (9) of this section. [Formerly 254.077; 1983 c.514 §9; 1985 c.447 §6; 1987 c.519 §2; 1989 c.503 §6; 1993 c.493 §96; 1995 c.534 §2; 2001 c.802 §2; 2007 c.159 §2]

 

      250.090 [Amended by 1957 c.608 §124; 1979 c.190 §243; renumbered 254.195]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 534 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). · cites it 34× “035(2), our next task is to describe and then to implement a methodology that will enable us to certify ballot titles for the various measures pursuant to ORS 250.085, while taking both ORS 250.035(1) and (2) into account.”
Carlson v. Myers, 959 P.2d 31 (Or. 1998). · cites it 27× “ORS 250.085. Petitioner also contends that, "[b]ecause of the resemblance between Initiative Nos.”
Mabon v. Myers, 33 P.3d 988 (Or. 2001). · cites it 20× “This ballot title review proceeding, brought under ORS 250.085(2), concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 34 (2002).”
Novick/Crew v. Myers, 100 P.3d 1064 (Or. 2004). · cites it 12× “The court has consolidated for opinion two petitions for review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioners Novick and Crew are electors who are dissatisfied with the Attorney General's certified ballot title.”
Sizemore v. Kulongoski, 905 P.2d 1146 (Or. 1995). · cites it 16× “2d 1143 (1995), a majority of this court held that ORS 250.085 (1993), which required this court to review and, if necessary, modify ballot titles prepared by the Attorney General, did not offend the separation of powers principle described in Article III, section 1, of the…”
Flanagan v. Myers, 30 P.3d 408 (Or. 2001). · cites it 13× “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that legislative changes to ORS 250.085 make it unnecessary for this court to resolve that question.”
Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 46), 909 P.2d 1216 (Or. 1996). · cites it 22× “ORS 250.085(2). We modify the ballot title in certain respects and, as modified, certify it to the Secretary of State.”
Terhune v. Myers, 154 P.3d 1284 (Or. 2007). · cites it 10× “Initiative Petition 50, if adopted, would add a section to Article XV of the Oregon Constitution that would grant a tax credit to parents "who directly spend money for educational expenses" as defined in the proposed measure equal "to the amount of their expenses.”
Phillips v. Myers, 936 P.2d 964 (Or. 1997). · cites it 12× “ORS 250.085(2). We modify the Attorney General's ballot title and certify it as modified.”
Sizemore v. Myers, 957 P.2d 577 (Or. 1998). · cites it 14× “See generally ORS 250.085 (prescribing procedures for challenge in Supreme Court to ballot title).”
Carley/Towers v. Myers, 132 P.3d 651 (Or. 2006). · cites it 13× “This case involves two petitions that seek review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). The Attorney General has certified the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 105 (2006).”
Greene v. Kulongoski, 903 P.2d 366 (Or. 1995). · cites it 8× “ORS 250.085(2) *368 (1993). Petitioner's arguments restate those that she made to the Secretary of State during the administrative process.”
Show all 534 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(1) — 23 cases
Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). “035(2), our next task is to describe and then to implement a methodology that will enable us to certify ballot titles for the various measures pursuant to ORS 250.085, while taking both ORS 250.035(1) and (2) into account.”
Whitsett v. Kroger, 230 P.3d 545 (Or. 2010).
Reed v. Roberts, 748 P.2d 542 (Or. 1988).
Bartels v. Paulus, 645 P.2d 1059 (Or. 1982).
Glerum v. Roberts, 774 P.2d 1093 (Or. 1989).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(10) — 2 cases
Conroy v. Rosenblum, 380 P.3d 299 (Or. 2016).
Conroy v. Rosenblum (Or. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(10)(a) — 15 cases
Rasmussen v. Kroger, 268 P.3d 153 (Or. 2011).
Waller/kain v. Myers, 94 P.3d 877 (Or. 2004).
Chamberlain v. Myers, 190 P.3d 380 (Or. 2008).
Christ v. Myers, 127 P.3d 651 (Or. 2005).
Kain/waller v. Myers, 94 P.3d 877 (Or. 2004).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(10)(b) — 7 cases
Nesbitt v. Myers, 71 P.3d 530 (Or. 2003).
Rasmussen v. Kroger, 270 P.3d 250 (Or. 2012).
& Novick/Bosak v. Myers (on objections), 41 P.3d 1080 (Or. 2002).
Bosak v. Myers (certification), 42 P.3d 910 (Or. 2002).
& Novick/Bosak v. Myers (certification), 43 P.3d 430 (Or. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(2) — 290 cases
Novick/Crew v. Myers, 100 P.3d 1064 (Or. 2004). “The court has consolidated for opinion two petitions for review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioners Novick and Crew are electors who are dissatisfied with the Attorney General's certified ballot title.”
Phillips v. Myers, 936 P.2d 964 (Or. 1997). “ORS 250.085(2). We modify the Attorney General's ballot title and certify it as modified.”
Terhune v. Myers, 154 P.3d 1284 (Or. 2007). “Initiative Petition 50, if adopted, would add a section to Article XV of the Oregon Constitution that would grant a tax credit to parents "who directly spend money for educational expenses" as defined in the proposed measure equal "to the amount of their expenses.”
Kafoury v. Roberts, 736 P.2d 178 (Or. 1987).
Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). “035(2), our next task is to describe and then to implement a methodology that will enable us to certify ballot titles for the various measures pursuant to ORS 250.085, while taking both ORS 250.035(1) and (2) into account.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(2)(b) — 2 cases
Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 46), 909 P.2d 1216 (Or. 1996). “ORS 250.085(2). We modify the ballot title in certain respects and, as modified, certify it to the Secretary of State.”
Brady/Berman v. Kroger, 225 P.3d 36 (Or. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(3) — 20 cases
Witt v. Kulongoski, 872 P.2d 14 (Or. 1994).
Remington v. Paulus, 675 P.2d 485 (Or. 1984).
Pac. Power & Light Co. v. Paulus, 643 P.2d 871 (Or. 1982).
Nelson v. Myers, 996 P.2d 975 (Or. 2000).
Sizemore v. Myers, 957 P.2d 577 (Or. 1998). “See generally ORS 250.085 (prescribing procedures for challenge in Supreme Court to ballot title).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(3)(a) — 3 cases
Oregon Educ. Ass'n v. Roberts, 721 P.2d 833 (Or. 1986).
Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017).
Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(4) — 58 cases
Rogers v. Roberts, 717 P.2d 620 (Or. 1986).
Sizemore v. Myers, 957 P.2d 577 (Or. 1998). “See generally ORS 250.085 (prescribing procedures for challenge in Supreme Court to ballot title).”
Aughenbaugh v. Roberts, 789 P.2d 656 (Or. 1990).
Nelson v. Roberts, 789 P.2d 650 (Or. 1990).
Oregon Citizen's All. v. Roberts, 783 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1989).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(5) — 295 cases
Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). “035(2), our next task is to describe and then to implement a methodology that will enable us to certify ballot titles for the various measures pursuant to ORS 250.085, while taking both ORS 250.035(1) and (2) into account.”
Carlson v. Myers, 959 P.2d 31 (Or. 1998). “ORS 250.085. Petitioner also contends that, "[b]ecause of the resemblance between Initiative Nos.”
Novick/Crew v. Myers, 100 P.3d 1064 (Or. 2004). “The court has consolidated for opinion two petitions for review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioners Novick and Crew are electors who are dissatisfied with the Attorney General's certified ballot title.”
Flanagan v. Myers, 30 P.3d 408 (Or. 2001). “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that legislative changes to ORS 250.085 make it unnecessary for this court to resolve that question.”
Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 46), 909 P.2d 1216 (Or. 1996). “ORS 250.085(2). We modify the ballot title in certain respects and, as modified, certify it to the Secretary of State.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(6) — 59 cases
Mabon v. Myers, 33 P.3d 988 (Or. 2001). “This ballot title review proceeding, brought under ORS 250.085(2), concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 34 (2002).”
Rooney v. Kulongoski, 902 P.2d 1143 (Or. 1995). “035(2), our next task is to describe and then to implement a methodology that will enable us to certify ballot titles for the various measures pursuant to ORS 250.085, while taking both ORS 250.035(1) and (2) into account.”
Carley/Towers v. Myers, 132 P.3d 651 (Or. 2006). “This case involves two petitions that seek review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). The Attorney General has certified the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 105 (2006).”
Nakamoto v. Kulongoski, 904 P.2d 165 (Or. 1995).
Ascher v. Kulongoski (elections Div. 46), 909 P.2d 1216 (Or. 1996). “ORS 250.085(2). We modify the ballot title in certain respects and, as modified, certify it to the Secretary of State.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(7) — 5 cases
Carley/Towers v. Myers, 132 P.3d 651 (Or. 2006). “This case involves two petitions that seek review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). The Attorney General has certified the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 105 (2006).”
Sizemore v. Myers, 957 P.2d 577 (Or. 1998). “See generally ORS 250.085 (prescribing procedures for challenge in Supreme Court to ballot title).”
Straube v. Myers, 132 P.3d 658 (Or. 2006).
Bates / Dahlman v. Rosenblum, 325 P.3d 735 (Or. 2014).
Mabon v. Myers, 984 P.2d 278 (Or. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(8) — 94 cases
Novick/Crew v. Myers, 100 P.3d 1064 (Or. 2004). “The court has consolidated for opinion two petitions for review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioners Novick and Crew are electors who are dissatisfied with the Attorney General's certified ballot title.”
Mabon v. Myers, 33 P.3d 988 (Or. 2001). “This ballot title review proceeding, brought under ORS 250.085(2), concerns the Attorney General's certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 34 (2002).”
Carley/Towers v. Myers, 132 P.3d 651 (Or. 2006). “This case involves two petitions that seek review of a ballot title under ORS 250.085(2). The Attorney General has certified the ballot title for a proposed initiative measure that the Secretary of State has denominated as Initiative Petition 105 (2006).”
Terhune v. Myers, 154 P.3d 1284 (Or. 2007). “Initiative Petition 50, if adopted, would add a section to Article XV of the Oregon Constitution that would grant a tax credit to parents "who directly spend money for educational expenses" as defined in the proposed measure equal "to the amount of their expenses.”
Novick v. Myers, 36 P.3d 464 (Or. 2001).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(9) — 71 cases
Nesbitt v. Myers, 71 P.3d 530 (Or. 2003).
Crew/Garcia v. Myers, 89 P.3d 1181 (Or. 2004).
Conroy v. Rosenblum, 380 P.3d 299 (Or. 2016).
Caruthers v. Kroger, 228 P.3d 549 (Or. 2010).
& Novick/Bosak v. Myers (on objections), 41 P.3d 1080 (Or. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.085(l)(a) — 1 case
Oregon Citizen's All. v. Roberts, 783 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1989).
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.