251.235
Petition for Supreme Court review of explanatory statement; service
requirements. (1)
Any person dissatisfied with an explanatory statement for which suggestions
were offered at the Secretary of State’s hearing under ORS 251.215 may petition
the Supreme Court seeking a different statement and stating the reasons the
statement filed with the court is insufficient or unclear. If the petition is
filed and served as required in subsection (2) of this section not later than
the fifth day after the deadline for filing a revised statement with the
Secretary of State, the court shall review the statement and certify an
explanatory statement to the Secretary of State. Failure to file and serve the
petition within the time prescribed in this subsection precludes Supreme Court
review and certification of an explanatory statement. If the court considers
the petition, the court may allow oral argument. The review by the Supreme
Court shall be conducted expeditiously to ensure the orderly and timely conduct
of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to the electors. The
statement certified by the court shall be the explanatory statement printed in
the voters’ pamphlet.
(2) At the time a
person petitions the Supreme Court under subsection (1) of this section, the
person also shall serve a copy of the petition on:
(a) The Attorney
General;
(b) The members
of the explanatory statement committee, if the committee filed a statement
under ORS 251.215;
(c) The chief
petitioners of the state measure, if the measure was initiated or referred by
petition; and
(d) The
Legislative Counsel, if the measure was referred by the Legislative Assembly or
if the explanatory statement prepared by the Legislative Counsel Committee is
the explanatory statement for the measure under ORS 251.225. [Formerly 254.230;
2001 c.18 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
Deras v. Myers
Deras v. Myers (1998)
or · cites it 22×
“This court conducts judicial review of ballot title explanatory statements pursuant to ORS 251.235, which provides: "Any person dissatisfied with an explanatory statement for which suggestions were offered at the Secretary of State's hearing under ORS 251.”
Sizemore v. Myers (1998)
or · cites it 14×
“Petitioner dissented from that statement. The Secretary of State held a hearing to receive comments on the prepared explanatory statement, and petitioner offered suggestions at that hearing.”
Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Paulus (1984)
or · cites it 7×
“*667 PER CURIAM Petitioner Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (TWCA) brings an original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 251.235 to challenge the explanation of a ballot measure prepared by a citizens’ committee for use by the Secretary of State in the voters’ pamphlet.”
Kellas v. Department of Corrections (2006)
or · cites it 2×
“Keisling, 320 Or 1, 3 , 879 P2d 850 (1994), was an original proceeding for judicial review of a ballot measure explanatory statement brought pursuant to ORS 251.235. 5 This court determined that the petitioner had standing merely because he met the broad statutory requirement of…”
Homuth v. Keisling (1992)
or · cites it 7×
“INTRODUCTION Petitioners Roger Graybeal and Automobile Club of Oregon (AAA) (petitioners) and petitioner/intervenor Don Homuth (intervenor) bring an original proceeding in this court pursuant to ORS 251.235, seeking review of the explanatory statement for 1992 Ballot Measure 4,…”
MacAfee v. Paulus (1980)
or · cites it 6×
“*653 PER CURIAM Petitioner brought an original proceeding in this court under ORS 251.235 to challenge the explanation of a ballot measure prepared for use by the Secretary of State in the Voters’ Pamphlet and suggested an amendment.”
Conkling v. Keisling (1993)
or · cites it 10×
“" Petitioner charges that the Explanatory Statement is "insufficient and unclear"the operative language in our judicial review statute, ORS 251.235 [2] in a number of respects.”
Sollis v. Hand (1990)
or · cites it 6×
“110; ORS 251.235; Teledyne Industries v. Paulus, 297 Or 665, 668-70 , 687 P2d 1077 (1984).”
Buel/Markley v. Rosenblum (2020)
or · cites it 5×
“035 and ORS 251.235, respectively. Held: The joint legislative committee’s ballot title and explanatory statement for LR 401 do not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 250.”
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany v. Powell (1986)
or · cites it 4×
“Petitioner Tele-dyne Wah Chang Albany (TWCA) seeks review of the statement under ORS 251.235. Some of petitioner’s contentions are correct.”
State Ex Rel. Fidanque v. Paulus (1984)
or · cites it 2×
“The statutes do not assign the courts a direct role in that determination, as they do in reviewing ballot titles or explanatory statements for the voter pamphlet.”
State Ex Rel. Bunn v. Roberts (1986)
or · cites it 2×
“125 is the explanatory statement process, for which judicial review is provided in ORS 251.235 by petition to this court. Under that statute, review of an explanatory statement must be sought within five days of the expiration of the last day for filing a revised explanatory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 251.235(1) — 2 cases
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.