Chapter 246
246.021
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Legislative
intent is that filing of properly certified statement must be timely in order
for statement to be included in Voters’ Pamphlet, and lack of certification
could not be cured by submission of certification after filing deadline. State
ex rel Anderson v. Paulus,
283 Or 241, 583 P2d 531 (1978)
246.046
See
annotations under ORS 260.325 in permanent edition.
246.110
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Secretary
of State is proper party named in petition to challenge voters’ pamphlet
explanation; though her duties are primarily ministerial, she may assume
adversarial role if she feels explanatory statement warrants her doing so under
this section or such role is mandated by ORS 251.055. Teledyne Industries v. Paulus, 297 Or 665, 687 P2d 1077 (1984)
Secretary
of State had authority to direct county clerk, and clerk had authority to carry
out directive, that city measure which does not comply with state law for
ballot placement be kept off state primary election ballot. City of Eugene v.
Roberts, 91 Or App 1, 756 P2d 643 (1988), aff’d
305 Or 641, 756 P2d 630 (1988)
246.200
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Secretary
of State had authority to direct county clerk, and clerk had authority to carry
out directive, that city measure which does not comply with state law for
ballot placement be kept off state primary election ballot. City of Eugene v.
Roberts, 91 Or App 1, 756 P2d 643 (1988), aff’d
305 Or 641, 756 P2d 630 (1988)
246.420
NOTE:
Repealed as of January 1, 2008; but see sec. 68, c. 154, Oregon Laws 2007
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Liability for
expenses, special district election, (1974) Vol 37, p
179
246.520
See
annotations under ORS 258.025 in permanent edition.
246.530
See
annotations under ORS 258.045 in permanent edition.
246.550
See
annotations under ORS 258.155 in permanent edition.
246.560
See
annotations under ORS 258.165 in permanent edition.
246.910
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Circuit
court had jurisdiction under this section because plaintiffs’ challenge to
placing measure on ballot was challenge to “act or failure to act by the
Secretary of State.” Ecumenical Ministries v. Paulus,
298 Or 62, 688 P2d 1339 (1984)
Reasonable
time for challenging decision of Secretary of State, including failure to
decide, whether proposed initiative measure violates “one subject only” rule of
Oregon Constitution, expires on 60th day following final approval of ballot
title. Ellis v. Roberts, 302 Or 6, 725 P2d 886 (1986)
Reasonable
time period for requiring filing of challenges to determination by Secretary of
State that state measure requires fiscal effects estimate is within five days
of expiration of last day for filing revised explanatory statement. State ex rel Bunn v. Roberts, 302 Or 72, 726 P2d 925 (1986)
Action
to appeal Secretary of State’s verification of signatures and certification of
initiative petition was timely where action was filed within period required
for judicial review of agency action other than contested case. Crumpton v. Roberts, 310 Or 381, 798 P2d 1100 (1990)
Reasonable
time for filing preelection challenge may be less
than 60 days in some circumstances. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615,
860 P2d 241 (1993)
Reasonable
time period for filing challenge based on single subject rule begins with certification
of ballot title in case of initiative petition, or effective date of
legislation ordering placement on ballot in case of referred measures. State ex
rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615, 860 P2d 241 (1993)
Legislature
may specify reasonable period for filing constitutional challenges to
time-sensitive legislation. State ex rel Keisling v. Norblad, 317 Or 615,
860 P2d 241 (1993)
Only
requirement for standing to challenge placement of measure on ballot is
allegation that plaintiff is registered voter. Lowe v. Keisling,
130 Or App 1, 882 P2d 91 (1994)
Judicially
created deadline for challenging preelection ballot
measure decision by Secretary of State applies for challenges filed after
election. League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon, 334 Or 645, 56 P3d 892
(2002)