Chapter 251

251.055

See also annotations under ORS 255.040 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Secretary of State is proper party named in petition to challenge voters’ pamphlet explanation; her duties are primarily ministerial, however, she may assume adversarial role if she feels such role is mandated under this section. Teledyne Industries v. Paulus, 297 Or 665, 687 P2d 1077 (1984)

251.065

See annotations under ORS 255.031 in permanent edition.

251.095

See annotations under ORS 255.051 in permanent edition.

251.115

See annotations under ORS 255.211 in permanent edition.

251.165

See annotations under ORS 255.061 in permanent edition.

251.185

(formerly 255.410)

See also annotations under ORS 255.410 in permanent edition.

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Voters’ pamphlet as not constitutionally required, (1972) Vol 36, p 140

251.195

See annotations under ORS 255.440 in permanent edition.

251.205

(formerly 254.210)

See also annotations under ORS 254.210 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where public’s interest in having presented to the voters as soon as possible policy matters of great and immediate public interest outweighs public’s interest in affording its individual members their full statutory right to participate in the presentation of issues to the public through the voters’ pamphlet, the court will not strike from the ballot proposed constitutional amendments which do not meet the time schedule provisions of this and related section [former] ORS 254.222. Sundeleaf v. Myers, 268 Or 302, 520 P2d 438 (1974)

Secretary of State is proper party respondent in petition to review explanatory statement, but need not be named. Sollis v. Hand, 310 Or 251, 796 P2d 1188 (1990)

251.215

(formerly 254.222)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where public’s interest in having presented to the voters as soon as possible policy matters of great and immediate public interest outweighs public’s interest in affording its individual members their full statutory right to participate in the presentation of issues to the public through the voters’ pamphlet, the court will not strike from the ballot proposed constitutional amendments which do not meet the time schedule provisions of this and related section [former] ORS 254.210. Sundeleaf v. Myers, 268 Or 302, 520 P2d 438 (1974)

Under this section, certification of initiative explanatory statement is required to be in writing. State ex rel Anderson v. Paulus, 283 Or 241, 583 P2d 531 (1978)

This section does not require Secretary of State to defend voters’ pamphlet explanation prepared by citizens’ committee. Teledyne Industries v. Paulus, 297 Or 665, 687 P2d 1077 (1984)

Explanatory statement that selects some noneffects on particular group is not impartial. Sollis v. Hand, 310 Or 251, 796 P2d 1188 (1990)

Official explanatory statement for ballot measure was modified when explanatory statement listed speculative effects and misleading information. Homuth v. Keisling, 314 Or 214, 837 P2d 532 (1992)

Explanation of ballot measure may include explanation of ballot measure effects. Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or 456, 964 P2d 255 (1998)

Use of boldfaced type to highlight portion of statement explaining ballot measure effects but not portion explaining ballot measure text was potentially misleading and made statement insufficient. Sizemore v. Myers, 327 Or 456, 964 P2d 255 (1998)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Explanatory statements as not constitutionally required, (1972) Vol 36, p 140

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 74 OLR 341 (1995)

251.235

(formerly 254.230)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Explanatory matter was insufficient and unclear and therefore modified by the court where: (1) Language therein stated some, but not all, of the funds that could be used for mass transit if the constitutional amendment passed; and (2) an explanation regarding a percentage limitation on highway funds which could be devoted to mass transit failed to point out that it was only a statutory limitation which could be changed by legislation or initiative petition at any time. Sundeleaf v. Myers, 268 Or 302, 520 P2d 438 (1974)

Petition for review of initiative explanatory statement prepared by Legislative Counsel Committee was denied where it was not filed within statutory time period, which is jurisdictional. Anderson v. Paulus, 283 Or 237, 583 P2d 534 (1978)

This section does not require Supreme Court to settle disputed meaning of ballot measure beyond assuring that proposed explanatory statement is not “insufficient.” MacAfee v. Paulus, 289 Or 651, 616 P2d 493 (1980); June v. Roberts, 310 Or 244, 797 P2d 357 (1990)

Petitioner has burden of showing beyond reasonable argument that explanatory statement is insufficient. June v. Roberts, 310 Or 244, 797 P2d 357 (1990)

Explanatory statement is insufficient and unclear when terms used in statement differ completely from phrasing of ballot title. Sollis v. Hand, 310 Or 251, 796 P2d 1188 (1990)

To be “insufficient,” misleading language within explanatory statement must remain misleading when read in context of entire explanatory statement. Novick v. Bradbury, 331 Or 14, 10 P3d 254 (2000)

251.255

(formerly 255.415)

See also annotations under ORS 255.421 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Each group filing arguments with the Secretary of State for the initiative measures contained in the voters’ pamphlet may file only one argument. Oregonians for Nuclear Safeguards v. Myers, 276 Or 167, 554 P2d 172 (1976)