Girod v. Kroger

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Ballot Titles
  • Date Filed: 12-08-2011
  • Case #: S059713
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Landau, J. for the Court; En Banc
  • Full Text Opinion

A ballot title’s caption must be specific enough for voters to identify the major effects of the proposed measure.

Girod and other petitioners sought review of Attorney General Kroger’s certified ballot title for Initiative Petition 21. Initiative Petition 21 banned the use of gillnets, and authorized the use of seines. Girod argued (1) that the ballot title caption did not satisfy the statutory requirements because it did not express the principal change that the measure proposed; and (2) the summary of the measure was improperly speculative about the possible consequences of the measure’s passage. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed, and held that the caption and summary must be modified. First, the Court found that the caption failed to comply with statutory requirements because it was too vague in its identification of the effects of the measure. In addition, the Court found that the stated effects of the passage of the measure found in the summary section of the ballot title did not qualify under the statutory requirement that the summary must state any “major effects” of the measure. Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for modification.

Advanced Search