Case ID: or_333/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted February 11,
    modified ballot title certified March 14, 2002
    Lon T. MABON, Petitioner, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent. Roy PULVERS, Petitioner, v. Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Respondent.
    
    (SC S48950 (Control))
    (SC S48951)
    (Consolidated for Opinion)
    41 P3d 1083
    No appearance by petitioner Mabon.
    Laura S. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the response for respondent. With her on the response were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
    Before Gillette, Leeson, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.
    
    
      PER CURIAM
    
      
       Carson, C. J., and Durham, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
    
   PER CURIAM

The court in this ballot title review proceeding determined that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for a proposed initiative measure, which the Secretary of State denominated as Initiative Petition 107 (2002), failed to comply substantially with statutory standards. Mabon/Pulvers v. Myers, 333 Or 252, 39 P3d 171 (2002). Under ORS 250.085(8), the court referred the ballot title to the Attorney General for modification. The Attorney General has filed a modified ballot title for the proposed initiative measure, and petitioner Pulvers has objected timely to the modified ballot title. See ORS 250.085(9) (setting out period within which party may object to modified ballot title).

We have reviewed the objections and conclude that they are not well taken. See id. (court reviews modified ballot title to determine whether title substantially complies with requirements of ORS 250.035). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the Attorney General’s modified ballot title for Initiative Petition 107 (2002). That ballot title states:

“AMENDS CONSTITUTION: CREATES NEW JUDICIAL OATH COMMITTING JUDGES TO FRAMERS’ INTENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONS, LEGISLATURE’S INTENT REGARDING STATUTES
“RESULT OF YES’ VOTE: Yes’ vote creates new judicial oath replacing existing oaths; commits judges to framers’ intent in interpreting state, federal constitutions, to legislature’s intent in interpreting statutes.
“RESULT OF ‘NO’ VOTE: ‘No’ vote retains existing judicial oaths; does not commit judges to framers’ intent in interpreting state, federal constitutions, or legislature’s intent in interpreting statutes.
“SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Current law requires judges to take oath of office to support the Oregon and federal constitutions, faithfully and impartially discharge duties according to best of their ability, and not accept any office except judicial office during elective term. Measure adds requirements that judges take oath to support and defend 1789 federal constitution and 1859 Oregon constitution; give allegiance only to Oregon and federal jurisdictions; “honor and maintain separation of powers doctrine;’ set aside personal views or those of any social faction; not ‘create law from the bench;’ uphold ‘will of the people;’ adhere strictly to intent of framers of constitution and statutes; defer to legislature to provide intent where framers’ intent is unclear. Measure does not define quoted terms. Other provisions.”

Modified ballot title certified.