250.296
Procedure for elector dissatisfied with ballot title of city measure. (1) Any elector dissatisfied with
a ballot title filed with the city elections officer by the city attorney or
the city governing body, may petition the circuit court of the judicial
district in which the city is located seeking a different title and stating the
reasons the title filed with the court is insufficient, not concise or unfair.
The petition shall name as respondent the city attorney or city governing body,
depending on who prepared the ballot title, and must be filed not later than
the seventh business day after the title is filed with the city elections
officer. The court shall review the title and measure to be initiated or
referred, hear arguments, if any, and certify to the city elections officer a
title for the measure which meets the requirements of ORS 250.035.
(2) An elector
filing a petition under this section shall notify the city elections officer in
writing that the petition has been filed. The notice shall be given not later
than 5 p.m. on the next business day following the day the petition is filed.
(3) The review by
the circuit court shall be the first and final review, and shall be conducted
expeditiously to insure the orderly and timely circulation of the petition or
conduct of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to the
electors. [1979 c.190 §166; 1983 c.514 §9b; 1987 c.707 §10; 1989 c.503 §8; 1993
c.493 §98; 1995 c.534 §4]
250.300 [Amended by 1979 c.190 §396;
renumbered 188.310]
Notes of Decisions
Coultas v. City of Sutherlin, 871 P.2d 465 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 6× “035 [general provision for form of ballot title],” the procedures for city ballot title challenges, set forth in ORS 250.296, 13 do not apply to ballot title challenges arising under ORS 310.”
City of Eugene v. Roberts, 756 P.2d 643 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Moreover, it would make no sense for the secretary to have the broad powers she enjoys to interpret, enforce and instruct county clerks concerning the election laws if they, in turn, have as little authority as the city suggests to carry out her instructions. The city next…”
Williams v. Wiley, 337 Or. App. 842 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner argued that the trial court had the authority and the obli- gation to modify both the ballot title and explanatory state- ment under ORS 250.296(1), which allows an elector to challenge, and the court to review and certify, a proposed ballot title.”
Kelley v. City of Gresham, 870 P.2d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“They petitioned for circuit court review of the ballot title under ORS 250.296, which provides, in part: “ (1) Any elector dissatisfied with a ballot title filed with the city elections officer by the city attorney or the city governing body, may petition the circuit court of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 250.296(1) — 1 case
Williams v. Wiley, 337 Or. App. 842 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Petitioner argued that the trial court had the authority and the obli- gation to modify both the ballot title and explanatory state- ment under ORS 250.296(1), which allows an elector to challenge, and the court to review and certify, a proposed ballot title.”
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.