Ross Day v. Elections Division of the Secretary of State

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 10-19-2011
  • Case #: A141017
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Rosenbaum, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Hearsay evidence may be admitted and considered in an administrative proceeding when it is reliable and substantial.

Ross Day contracted with Democracy Direct Inc. (DDI) to gather signatures for Initiative Petition 57. The contract prohibited payment on a per-signature basis. After oral assurances of compliance regarding the payment methods, the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office received a formal complaint alleging that Day violated the contract. Day subsequently sought judicial review of his fine, contending that the secretary’s order was not supported by substantial evidence regarding payment by signature and failure to ensure that petition circulators were not paid per signature. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the evidence presented was hearsay and concluded that based on a multi-factor test, that quantity and quality of the supporting and opposing evidence was reliable and substantial. Affirmed.

Advanced Search