Vaandering v. Rosenblum

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Ballot Titles
  • Date Filed: 04-07-2016
  • Case #: S063820
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Kistler, J. for the Court; En Banc.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 250.035(2)(a-c), a ballot title must describe all major effects of a ballot measure, including the important results in “yes” and “no” vote scenarios and all significant effects of the measure in the summary.

Petitioners sought review of the ballot title for Initiative Petition 69 (IP 69). Under ORS 250.035(2)(a) a ballot title’s caption must reasonably identify the subject matter by describing the “actual major effects” of the measure. Petitioners challenged the caption because it focused on only two of the four major effects of the measure. Petitioners also challenged the “yes” and “no” result statements as under-inclusive for the same reasons. Finally, petitioners challenged the ballot summary as incomplete and inaccurate. The Court agreed that because the ballot title’s caption focused on only two of the four major effects of the measure it did not meet the requirements of ORS 250.035(2)(a). The Court held that the “yes” and “no” results statements were also inadequate as they fail to convey the important results in each scenario, as required by ORS 250.035(2)(b). Finally, the Court found the summary of the ballot measure failed to meet the requirements in ORS 250.035(2)(c) because it failed to mention all significant effects of the measure. The Court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification.

Advanced Search