Supreme Court review of explanatory statement
- service requirements
Source:
Section 251.235 — Supreme Court review of explanatory statement; service requirements, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors251.html.
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)
Up to date