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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.265 (2026)

Prospective petition; cover and signature sheet requirements; circulation; filing deadline

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

      250.265 Prospective petition; cover and signature sheet requirements; circulation; filing deadline. (1) Before circulating a petition to initiate or refer a city measure, the petitioner shall file with the city elections officer a prospective petition. The officer immediately shall date and time stamp the prospective petition, and specify the form on which the petition shall be printed for circulation. The officer shall retain the prospective petition.

      (2) The cover of an initiative or referendum petition shall designate the name and city and state of residence of not more than three persons as chief petitioners and shall contain instructions for persons obtaining signatures of electors on the petition. The instructions shall be adopted by the Secretary of State by rule. The cover of a referendum petition shall contain the title described in ORS 250.275 (1). If the circuit court has not reviewed the ballot title under ORS 250.296, the cover of an initiative petition shall contain the ballot title described in ORS 250.275 (3). If the circuit court has reviewed the ballot title, the cover of the initiative petition shall contain the title certified by the court.

      (3) The chief petitioners shall include with the prospective petition a statement declaring whether one or more persons will be paid money or other valuable consideration for obtaining signatures of electors on the initiative or referendum petition. After the prospective petition is filed, the chief petitioners shall notify the filing officer not later than the 10th day after any of the chief petitioners first has knowledge or should have had knowledge that:

      (a) Any person is being paid for obtaining signatures, when the statement included with the prospective petition declared that no such person would be paid.

      (b) No person is being paid for obtaining signatures, when the statement included with the prospective petition declared that one or more such persons would be paid.

      (4)(a) Each sheet of signatures on an initiative petition shall contain the caption of the ballot title. Each sheet of signatures on a referendum petition shall contain the number of the ordinance or resolution to be referred, if any, and the date it was adopted by the city governing body.

      (b) Each sheet of signatures on an initiative or referendum petition shall, if one or more persons will be paid for obtaining signatures of electors on the petition, contain a notice stating: “Some Circulators For This Petition Are Being Paid.”

      (5) The reverse side of the cover of an initiative or referendum petition shall be used for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition.

      (6) Not more than 20 signatures on the signature sheet of the initiative or referendum petition shall be counted. The circulator shall certify on each signature sheet that the circulator:

      (a) Witnessed the signing of the signature sheet by each individual whose signature appears on the signature sheet; and

      (b) Believes each individual is an elector registered in the city.

      (7) Unless otherwise provided by a city ordinance, the gathering of signatures on a petition to initiate a city measure may not exceed a period of two years from the time the petition is approved for circulation.

      (8) A city elections officer may not accept for filing any petition which has not met the provisions of subsection (7) of this section.

      (9) A petition to initiate a city measure must be filed not less than 90 days before the election at which the proposed law is to be voted on.

      (10) The person obtaining signatures on the petition shall carry at least one full and correct copy of the measure to be initiated or referred and shall allow any person to review a copy upon request of the person. [1979 c.190 §163; 1981 c.909 §6; 1983 c.756 §11; 1991 c.106 §2; 1992 c.1 §3; 1995 c.607 §30; 1997 c.846 §3; 1999 c.318 §29; 2001 c.965 §6; 2007 c.848 §17; 2009 c.571 §2; 2021 c.473 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Pend-Air Citizen's Comm. v. City of Pendleton, 929 P.2d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Pend-Air Citizen's Comm. v. City of Pendleton, 929 P.2d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 10× “Without dwelling unduly on the procedural or substantive complexities of the dispute, the issues appear to *240 have reduced to two: (1) What was the proper relationship between Pendleton City Ordinance #3488, which prescribes procedures for initiative petitions to enact…”
City of Damascus v. State of Oregon, 472 P.3d 741 (Or. 2020). · cites it 3× ““(2) The requirements for preparing, circulating and filing a petition and calling an election under this section shall be as provided for an initiative measure under ORS 250.265 to 250.346, except that notwithstanding ORS 250.”
De Young v. Brown, 443 P.3d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “621(2) and (3) provide: "(2) The requirements for preparing, circulating and filing a petition and calling an election under this section shall be as provided for an initiative measure under ORS 250.265 to 250.346, except that notwithstanding ORS 250.”
Coultas v. City of Sutherlin, 871 P.2d 465 (Or. 1994). “255 provides: “ORS 250.265 to 250.346 [including ORS 250.”
Boytano v. Fritz, 901 P.2d 835 (Or. 1995). “In this case, defendant, as the elections officer for the City of Klamath Falls, is responsible for receiving and processing an initiative petition, ORS 250.265, for “authorizing] the circulation of the petition,” ORS 250.”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 979 P.2d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “Indeed, the trial court determined that defendants were correct in concluding that former ORS 250.265(2) and (5) controlled and that relators’ petition and signature sheets did not comply with that statute.”
State Ex Rel. Coastal Mgmt. v. Washington Cty., 979 P.2d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “Indeed, the trial court determined that defendants were correct in concluding that former ORS 250.265(2) and (5) controlled and that relators' petition and signature sheets did not comply with that statute.”
Kelley v. City of Gresham, 870 P.2d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “255 provides: “ORS 250.265 to 250.346 applies to the exercise of initiative or referendum powers regarding a city measure under section 1, Article IV, Oregon Constitution, unless the city charter or ordinance provides otherwise.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.265(2) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Pend-Air Citizen's Comm. v. City of Pendleton, 929 P.2d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “Without dwelling unduly on the procedural or substantive complexities of the dispute, the issues appear to *240 have reduced to two: (1) What was the proper relationship between Pendleton City Ordinance #3488, which prescribes procedures for initiative petitions to enact…”
State ex rel. Coastal Mgmt., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 979 P.2d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “Indeed, the trial court determined that defendants were correct in concluding that former ORS 250.265(2) and (5) controlled and that relators’ petition and signature sheets did not comply with that statute.”
State Ex Rel. Coastal Mgmt. v. Washington Cty., 979 P.2d 300 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “Indeed, the trial court determined that defendants were correct in concluding that former ORS 250.265(2) and (5) controlled and that relators' petition and signature sheets did not comply with that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.265(4)(b) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Pend-Air Citizen's Comm. v. City of Pendleton, 929 P.2d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “Without dwelling unduly on the procedural or substantive complexities of the dispute, the issues appear to *240 have reduced to two: (1) What was the proper relationship between Pendleton City Ordinance #3488, which prescribes procedures for initiative petitions to enact…”
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.